The Apron

[Phil H]

People can read anything into anything if they so wish.

Phil

[lynn cates]

hoax

Hello Abby. Part of the difficulty is to explain what one means by "hoax."

Does one mean:

1. The killer did not write the letter

or

2. The letter was done as a prank?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

gap

Hello Phil. There was also a gap between Chapman and Eddowes. If one takes the "Dear Boss" seriously, it looks like there is an attempt to explain that gap.

Cheers.
LC

[Abby Normal]

there is something really odd about GH statement and i think the clues will be most of all in his letters.... but if they're not by him then it doesn't really matter, because he might have adjusted his statement to suit someone elses letters.

Malcolm - are you really suggesting that the "Letters from Hell" correspondence was from "Jack"?

It seems to take us back to thinking in the 60s. I thought we had got beyond that.

Phil

The biggest myth in Ripperworld are that the "from hell" (and the Dear Boss letters for that matter) are a known hoax. Neither is proven to be a hoax, and from their content alone there is possible evidence that they could be authentic. Unless there is any new evidence to the contrary they remain strong possibilities of being authentic-same as the GSG.

Serial murderers are known to leave/send messages and that is a known fact!

[Phil H]

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

[Malcolm X]

Hello Malcolm.

"well just look at Stride, very strange isn't it"

Indeed. But ALL of it is. Things just don't add up. That leaves me nonplussed. (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

things dont add up just like that Amanda Knox woman on tv last night, it's just impossible to nail anyone, because the DNA evidence was compromised and cross contaminated..... if you believe that !

[Malcolm X]

i havent made myself clear, i mean if JTR killed stride and if the apron was left at say 2.20am, if this is so..... IF...... then he almost definitely returned to Dutfields.

It is still nonsense, Malcolm.

If it's your idea then OK, but don't try to market it as fact.

The timing of the leaving of the apron-piece in Goulston St (which must inevitably be speculative) has no bearing on where Jack was at any point - excpet that he was MOST PROBABLY in Goulston St when the material was dropped (whenever that was).

Afterwards he could and probably did, go home. ut he could have wandered the streets, he could even remotely) have gone home first and then returned to leave the material (though personally I doubt it).

My concern here is that you are building up complicated chronologies of events without any foundation nor real evidence to support a word of it.

Phil

OH NO I HAVE NO EVIDENCE, i'm just putting forward a theory and i havent ever said anything to the contrary, but my theory is definitely not wild speculation..... it's definitely worth mentioning

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

but this is for you to defend, because sooner or later i'll ask you to explain why you think this, i'll look forward to this !

Glenn thought this too and by God he got some serious stick ! so it's fair to say that both of us like to speculate dont we, but MJK being killed by a copycat is going too far

[lynn cates]

nonplussed

Hello Malcolm.

"well just look at Stride, very strange isn't it"

Indeed. But ALL of it is. Things just don't add up. That leaves me nonplussed. (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[Phil H]

i havent made myself clear, i mean if JTR killed stride and if the apron was left at say 2.20am, if this is so..... IF...... then he almost definitely returned to Dutfields.

It is still nonsense, Malcolm.

If it's your idea then OK, but don't try to market it as fact.

The timing of the leaving of the apron-piece in Goulston St (which must inevitably be speculative) has no bearing on where Jack was at any point - excpet that he was MOST PROBABLY in Goulston St when the material was dropped (whenever that was).

Afterwards he could and probably did, go home. ut he could have wandered the streets, he could even remotely) have gone home first and then returned to leave the material (though personally I doubt it).

My concern here is that you are building up complicated chronologies of events without any foundation nor real evidence to support a word of it.

Phil

[Malcolm X]

The arguments for dismissing the key letters have been well-rehearsed, and the facts seems to support the views of senior police officers of the time.

There is no NEED to link letters and murderer UNLESS one is seeking tolink to an individual who COMMUNICATES. There is no evidence, whatsoever, this was the case or is necessary to explain the murders or identify at least the type of man who might have done it.

Phil

you're missing what i'm saying, did GH in his statement refer to the letters in any way, is there any cryptic clues..... i dont think there is, but it's worth a look

[Malcolm X]

what he did next doesn't matter one bit, but it's still very interesting, he either dumped the apron soon after, or later on as discussed, if so; he almost definitely returned to Dutfields.

Oh come on! There's no "almost certainly about it - even if "Jack" killed Stride, which is open to question.

Phil

i havent made myself clear, i mean if JTR killed stride and if the apron was left at say 2.20am, if this is so..... IF...... then he almost definitely returned to Dutfields first.

[Phil H]

The arguments for dismissing the key letters have been well-rehearsed, and the facts seems to support the views of senior police officers of the time.

There is no NEED to link letters and murderer UNLESS one is seeking tolink to an individual who COMMUNICATES. There is no evidence, whatsoever, this was the case or is necessary to explain the murders or identify at least the type of man who might have done it.

Phil

[Malcolm X]

there is something really odd about GH statement and i think the clues will be most of all in his letters.... but if they're not by him then it doesn't really matter, because he might have adjusted his statement to suit someone elses letters.

Malcolm - are you really suggesting that the "Letters from Hell" correspondence was from "Jack"?

It seems to take us back to thinking in the 60s. I thought we had got beyond that.

Phil

we havent gone beyond much i'm afraid, we are as clueless now as we were back then..

i need to see if i can detect anything, that's all

[Phil H]

what he did next doesn't matter one bit, but it's still very interesting, he either dumped the apron soon after, or later on as discussed, if so; he almost definitely returned to Dutfields.

Oh come on! There's no "almost certainly about it - even if "Jack" killed Stride, which is open to question.

Phil

[Malcolm X]

what makes everyone think that JTR was in a mad hurry all the time !!!

is this because he saw the policeman at range and thus only had enough time to quickly cut off the apron, or was he always intending to remove the apron piece !

there must have been a dry piece of wall somewhere in mitre square/ leave the apron too, but this means that he's too close to the body whilst he's searching for a dry spot, he needs to escape Mitre square but not to run, because this attracts attention.

what he did next doesn't matter one bit, but it's still very interesting, he either dumped the apron soon after, or later on as discussed, if so; he almost definitely returned to Dutfields.

finally, the writing was neat and very small, this was not done in a mad rush either.