The Apron

[Carol]

Hi everyone!

I've just spent what seems like ages trying to find a post. It's to do with Wentworth Buildings entrance and it was posted fairly recently. I want to find out how the killer could have exited the building if he didn't feel it was safe to go out the way he came in. I'm sure I can remember someone posting where the only possible other exit was.

I really hope someone remembers (perhaps the poster concerned!) as this knowledge is essential to me being able to solve this puzzle once and for all.

Carol

[Abby Normal]

All
Eventhough I lean towards the apron and GSG being related, this thread has got me thinking about other scenarios(in which the two are not related) and why the killer would take the apron only to discard it.

perhaps as his mutilations increased also his fantasy re "trophies" was also changing/growing and he wanted the clothing as well as organs as a trophy too. Only to find out a short while later that his new trophy of an apron was dirty (with feces) and therefor he chucked it.

Just a thought.

[Malcolm X]

Perhaps the killer was out every weekend looking for a chance to murder. It
must have been very difficult to find the 'right' circumstances. When he eventually had a chance to kill Stride (I think he did kill her) the very fact that he couldn't mutilate her must have driven him even crazier. He took a definite risk with killing Eddowes but I think his need to mutilate a woman was beyond his control by that time. The fact that the mutilations seem to have been done 'uncarefully' I think was just him completely out of control.

Carol

no he was definitely well in control of everything he did.

1..... he was never caught
2.....killed quickly and efficiently
3.....never seen well enough
4.....drained the body of blood before he mutilated

he was like a flipping ghost, yes this bastard knew exactly what he was doing, he didn't make too much of a mess either..... Bundy and Sutcliffe were far more brutal..... bloody hell, miles more !

MJK was ripped apart yes, but then again..... the organs were laid around her carefully, not brutal, it's more like a kind of sickness, he was in some sort of twisted trance, it's most odd

right circumstances, out every weekend.... yes you're probably right there

[Malcolm X]

Do you mean like a sailor, Trevor? You could be on to something there.

a sailor is a damned good suspect, but for this to work you definitely need to find victims elsewhere

[Carol]

Of course the gaps between the murders could be as a result of the killer being a traveller

Perhaps the killer was out every weekend looking for a chance to murder. It
must have been very difficult to find the 'right' circumstances. When he eventually had a chance to kill Stride (I think he did kill her) the very fact that he couldn't mutilate her must have driven him even crazier. He took a definite risk with killing Eddowes but I think his need to mutilate a woman was beyond his control by that time. The fact that the mutilations seem to have been done 'uncarefully' I think was just him completely out of control.

Carol

[Malcolm X]

i tell you what is wild speculation, and that's people who think MJK was killed by someone else, that's plain rediculous !

But you cannot PROVE she was killed by JtR - that is just a mix of longstanding conventional wisdom and surmise.

Consider:

There was a long gap between Eddowes and MJK.

The murder was inconsistent - indoors.

The mutilations were markedly more severe.

The victim was younger than the others.

The question of access to the room make it likely that the victim KNEW her killer or that he was familiar with her room. There is little evidence of such a link in any of the other murders.

The other victims, in all probability LED JtR to the place they died - it is possible MJK did not.

I could go on.

The reasoning is very similar to that for including other murders in the series -Tabram, McKenzie, Coles.

I would also point out that the choice of the canonical five has little more to support it than the choice of the four canonical gospels. Someone - in this case Macnaghten (who was not involved in 1888) decided to affirm the five.

So I reject your comment, which won't surprise you, I am sure.

Phil

of course you reject what i'm saying, this must be the case if you support a theory that MJK was killed by someone else, you are also in conflict with 98% of all historians.... from here to Timbuktoo

long gap in time ?..... well what, this does not mean anything major! this could be due to JTR waiting for the increased police presence on the street to die down, he might have been ill, visiting his mother up north, working up north bla bla bla, you will have to do better than this

the murder was indoors and markedly more severe, it was more severe/ brutal and repulsive simply because it WAS INDOORS, he was in there for ages and relatively safe, but any time before 4AM is too risky, because there is still a possibility that a friend could come around.

we dont know if he broke in/ invited in, but if he was invited in, it's highly unlikely that he would say no, due to the fact that he may have been a street killer only.... no, he is an opportunist, he would kill anywhere, even somebodies back yard .... none of the others were killed inside, no this is because his other victims wanted sex out on the street only.

where were the torsos carved up ?.... deffo inside, sorry, i've never once said that JTR didn't kill these women either..... this is a totally different MO/SIG, of course it is, but it could still be JTR. there is nothing to say that JTR wouldn't shoot someone/ poison someone, use a crow bar, a broken pipe to stab etc.... just look at Zodiac.

the victim was young yes, JTR got lucky didn't he

the victim maybe knew JTR due to room access......not necessarily, he only has to stroll down millers court to see the layout of her room, to judge the gap between the broken window and the door handle, this is an arms length away...... but only when he's allowed her plenty of time to fall asleep

and yes maybe he did know MJK, this does not rule out GH and dont forget that the key went missing too, but for me he broke in instead

MJK did not lead JTR to her place of death, she did if he heard her singing and she did if GH saw George Chapman, or if Blotchy Face is JTR instead! my guess is that JTR simply heard her singing, but this means that he must have visited Millers court twice, because i think she stopped singing somewhere around 1am, and he lurked around at 2am....but i'm not sure about this yet

a copycat killer is extremely unlikely, it's as crazy as Mary dieing in the morning between 8 and 10am. MJK is quite simply, a more hideous version of the Eddowes murder, nothing more. A copycat killer to do this, would need to be already a highly experienced killer in his own right, THIS IS NOT AN AMATEUR AT WORK, it's way too Devil may care, confident and downright disgusting for a beginner.

finally, copycat of what, wouldn't a copycat have copied the face mutilations of Eddowes more accurately and the rest too, i'm not sure here.... but if this murder was indeed very similar to Eddowes by word definition, then i would say that this is definitely a copycat, but it isn't, it's JTR becoming more hideous due to being inside, thus the wounds vary.

finally with regards to this copycat, i see no other Whitechapel mutilated victim that's not regarded as a JTR victim..... (torsos aside) W.Bury yes but this is different, there is maybe evidence of another serial killer at work, but he's not a mutilator

you see, it is easy to disagree without attacking each other

a copycat killer? by God you've got some work to do, yes i like my theories but even i wouldn't tackle this!

[Phil H]

Weren't sailors considered at the time - indeed dvery specifically.

I am sure I recall the Queen herself asking whether they had been investigated.

Phil

[ChrisGeorge]

Of course the gaps between the murders could be as a result of the killer being a traveller

Do you mean like a sailor, Trevor? You could be on to something there.

[lynn cates]

Mary and liz

Hello Tom. Initially I doubted MJ before Liz. Way back when, I edited out Liz on account of the lack of mutilation. I put little stock in that now. I prefer, instead, to focus on depth of neck wound, 1 cut, not 2, and, above all, location of the body--plus the fact that her feet seem to indicate she was leaving the yard, not going into it. The cachous also create a problem for me.

Why can one not go back? I think it is related to David Hume's story. He claimed that he would indulge in metaphysical speculation and then stop and dine with his friends. Later, when he tried to go back to metaphysics, he found it "cold, strain'd and ridiculous."

I may be wrong, but that is how the whole sexual serial killer business strikes me.

But enough. Don't wish to be accused of highjacking. I'll leave that for Kos. (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

LA

Hello Tom. As also when he went to great pains to deny that he was Leather Apron.

Cheers.
LC

[Trevor Marriott]

Historically speaking, Mary Kelly is of course a Ripper victim. The idea that she was not was born in the 1990's and the only evidentiary support for it comes from the gray areas of some of the evidence that, as a rule, must have multiple explanations. For instance, what Phil H calls a 'big gap', but in reality is only 5 weeks. When you read or hear something enough, it truly does effect your thought. Some time back, I asked a number of people what FIRST made them think Stride wasn't a Ripper victim...the very first idea that gave them doubt. In literally every single case, the 'fact' that changed their mind turned out not to be a fact at all, but one or more of the many myths accepted as fact at that time. Remarkably (or perhaps not so), when it was demonstrated to their own satisfaction that this view changing 'fact' was in reality an error and not fact at all, not one of them could change their view back to what it was before that error had effected their thinking, i.e. that Stride was a Ripper victim.

In the case of Kelly, because the idea that she wasn't a Ripper victim was entered into the mix so late in the game that myths couldn't really take hold, and of course because of the extent of her injuries, it clearly remains a minority view that she wasn't a Ripper victim.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Of course the gaps between the murders could be as a result of the killer being a traveller

[Trevor Marriott]

Hello, Gentlemen,
Thanks for the replies.

I don't know what happened the night Stride and Eddowes were killed. It's that simple.

But IF the same man killed them both, you have someone who delights in taking chances and was revv'd from two murders.

Do you really believe that a man who would cut the throat of a woman in an area as crowded as Dutfield's Yard or surrounded by policemen as he was at Mitre Square would stop to consider the danger of going back out, dropping the apron piece then writing something incoherent?

Really, he would be afraid? He would be hesitant?

I think he might be glorying in it.

Have you ever been around actors after a "standing ovation" show? Do you have any idea how "UP" people get and for how long it lasts before they crash?

I am beginning to believe this killer (IF it is just one, and I'm not sure) would have likely have taken especial delight in pulling this one last thing off. He had only to drop the apron. If accosted by police while writing, he could simply disavow even having noticed the piece of debris at his feet. It was simply there, had nothing to do with him. BUT he was not caught . . .

I don't believe we can apply logic here, gentlemen. You have a crazy person, drunk with success and blood, he eluded the authorities and everyone else in a crowded yard and even under the noses of several policeman.

He was invincible!

curious

Would a crazy person have simply cut a piece of apron and took it away with him and I stand to be corrected here but was it not cut almost perfectly as i have said before having regards to her clothes being pulled up it would have been more difficult.

Besides if he did cut it surely it would have been the last thing he did and thefore the apron still attached to her would have ben clearly visible to the police and doctors but no they said her clothes were drawn up hardly likley to have cut it first.

[Tom_Wescott]

Historically speaking, Mary Kelly is of course a Ripper victim. The idea that she was not was born in the 1990's and the only evidentiary support for it comes from the gray areas of some of the evidence that, as a rule, must have multiple explanations. For instance, what Phil H calls a 'big gap', but in reality is only 5 weeks. When you read or hear something enough, it truly does effect your thought. Some time back, I asked a number of people what FIRST made them think Stride wasn't a Ripper victim...the very first idea that gave them doubt. In literally every single case, the 'fact' that changed their mind turned out not to be a fact at all, but one or more of the many myths accepted as fact at that time. Remarkably (or perhaps not so), when it was demonstrated to their own satisfaction that this view changing 'fact' was in reality an error and not fact at all, not one of them could change their view back to what it was before that error had effected their thinking, i.e. that Stride was a Ripper victim.

In the case of Kelly, because the idea that she wasn't a Ripper victim was entered into the mix so late in the game that myths couldn't really take hold, and of course because of the extent of her injuries, it clearly remains a minority view that she wasn't a Ripper victim.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Hello Phil. There was also a gap between Chapman and Eddowes.

Yes, a long gap. As in Long Liz.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

P.S. The 'Dear Boss' author got one thing right, when he said 'Grand job the last one was.'

[Phil H]

Abby

Unless there is any new evidence to the contrary they remain strong possibilities of being authentic-same as the GSG.

And I'd always held you in some respect up to this point.

there is no STRONG possibility that the GSG is authentic. PERIOD.

It makes no sense, there is no agreement on its potential meaning, and there is no clear link to the cloth and thus to JtR authorship. Only those who NEED it to be genuine - as with the letters - ever argue for the link.

Sorry,

Phil