The Apron

[lynn cates]

conflation

Hello Greg.

"I think Lynn Cates stated a while back that the Ockham’s razor thing is a myth!"

Actually, I said that Ockham's Razor: "Entia non sunt multiplicanda, sine necessitate" is misunderstood.

What some of us are calling Ockham's Razor is actually the "Principle of Parsimony."

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

I remember once cutting myself while making dinner, and the damn thing bled profusely for at least ten minutes and kept on seeping for hours.

Thankyou, and I was about to ask you for an example to support your theory.
My response was going to be to ask,...

"...at what point did you rip that bandaid from your bleeding finger to throw it away?"

Goulston St. was something of the order of 1500 feet from the murder site, that might take a running man 2 minutes to cover?, so why throw the apron away when his cut is still bleeding?

Your cut bled for 10 minutes but Goulston St. was only 2-3 minutes away?

I don't think your solution of Jack cutting himself provides the all important answer to the question of "why discard the apron several streets, but only 2 minutes away?"

Regards, Jon S.

[Monty]

I would agree with this, just as I agree with what Caz said before. The rub is that others, such as John Bennett and Monty on this thread, feel that this explanation is the most complex and that a simpler explanation is an unrelated hand for Stride's murder and yet another unrelated hand in the graffiti. To my mind, the purpose of the apron only becomes mystifying when comtemplating the minimalist scenario, because it the killer had no intention of leaving the graffiti, there really is no purpose for the cutting and taking of the apron piece. Since I choose to believe the Ripper wrote the graffiti, the apron piece takes on a practical purpose. My scenario - that the Ripper intentionally killed two women in different police jurisdictions and planted false clues in Goulston Street - may be incorrect, but it makes sense of all the evidence and leaves little in the way of mystery left.

I think it likely that we all, knowingly or not, interpet the evidence based on our personal biases of what we think the Ripper was like. Not necessarily WHO we think he was, but what. If we see the Ripper as a (to use a now-antiquated term) 'disorganized' sexual serial killer, then such things as a successful double murder and planned graffiti don't make much sense. If we see the Ripper as someone more planning, and perhaps more intelligent, or perhaps someone with an agenda, then it's not difficult at all to accept the various pieces of evidence.

That's not to say we all haven't considered the various viewpoints, and different scenarios, but maybe we're just hardwired differently.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Like John, I agree with that last paragraph.

I will make one think clear, I do understand why Tom draws his conclusions and how and whilst I do disagree with them I can state that I cannot dismiss them. I am aware that my conclusions have there faults as Tom is aware his do also.

To pidgeon hole someone as a 'minimalist' is unfair and, in my case, untrue. I simply draw a different conclusion.

Monty

[Chava]

I just checked what Catherine Eddowes wore on the night she died. Basically it looks like she wore everything she had. A couple of old skirts under the top skirt, a worn but fairly formal jacket etc. But it doesn't appear she was wearing an apron. A piece of apron still possessing strings is described among her possessions. Yet one of the cops at Bishopsgate did describe her wearing an apron in the cells.

See, I got to thinking why was she wearing an apron at all? She's out on the ran-tan and the other clothes she's wearing don't suggest that she would be wearing an apron over them. The other victims aren't wearing aprons, they're dressed for some kind of night out even if it's only a night out on their corner waiting for johns. I can see where she would have an apron among her possessions because it's always useful to have one. And I can also see that she might have it tied around her waist along with her pockets, and her skirts and so on. But I doubt she wore it outside her clothes that night and I think it's possible that the Bishopsgate cop mistook one of her calico pockets, that she might have pulled out to ferret around in, as an apron.

This way the killer throws up her skirts, likely the bit of apron was on the bottom near to the chemise. And it's the closest thing to hand when he wants to shear off a piece. But I don't think we can assume it's a really large piece of material unless we have the exact dimensions of the cloth. Being as how I'm now at work I don't have access to my A-Z. Does anyone know exactly how big that piece of linen was?

[ChrisGeorge]

Chava - I don't think he needed a great expanse of apron to wrap around his finger.

If you will excuse the satire....

[Lechmere]

Chava - I don't think he needed a great expanse of apron to wrap around his finger.
Maria - to understand them emotionally is to understand their motivation - that is why it is so difficult or almost impossible.

[Chava]

As Ally points out, if you're just wiping your hands, you discard the cloth asap. It's incriminating evidence. But the description of the apron does not suggest that's what the killer is doing. There would be smudges everywhere, not just a wodge of blood in one corner. I'm sticking to my guns here. I think he cut himself and grabbed a piece of cloth and wound it round. Deep finger cuts can bleed like the devil. I remember once cutting myself while making dinner, and the damn thing bled profusely for at least ten minutes and kept on seeping for hours. I went through 4 band-aids because they wouldn't stick on the finger owing to the blood flow. I'll bet anyone who cooks on a regular basis can attest to that. As well, a deep cut can leave a blood drop trail unless you stanch it fast. Those blood drops would point to where the murderer had run off to. He's quick-thinking and quick-acting. He keeps his head in emergencies. He realizes he's cut himself and does something about it fast.

As for whether he comes prepared to take his souvenirs, I believe he must. There's no suggestion he took anything off Chapman's body to carry away the bits and bobs he took from her. And shoving them into his jacket pocket wouldn't be a very efficient way to carry on given now much they would bleed into the cloth, and then the cloth would start to stink and draw attention even after the said bits and bobs were removed.

[mariab]

We cannot “understand“ them emotionally, since we're (hopefully) healthy and no sociopaths, but we can certainly figure out their motivations and how their minds work.

[GregBaron]

Normal thinking out...

Some fine posts here people. I concur with the thoughts of both Lechmere and Caz. We cannot understand the mind or motivations of a psychopath. They are almost like another species. Hopefully, there are no psychopaths on these boards, but if there are, maybe they can help us out.

I’m not sure we can learn from Bundy’s double event? He collected two “specimens”, tied them up and did with them what he would. He also had the luxury of indoor shelter. I believe since the ground was so fertile that day, hundreds of available victims, he just thought I can’t pass this up, it’s too easy. Not unlike a hunter in a field of deer. These poor young women were merely objects to him. Again, the mind is unfathomable.

I’m not sure how this might relate to the Berner St.- Mitre Square DE. Perhaps others have some ideas?

As for the simplest solution, I think Lynn Cates stated a while back that the Ockham’s razor thing is a myth! Have we really been duped all these years?

Greg

[Casebook Wiki Editor]

We do know that Bundy had his own double event, and maybe there is something we can learn from his known behaviour on that and other occasions - assuming Bundy's mind was quite likely to have worked more like the Mitre Square killer's than ours.

Excellent point. I had forgotten about Bundy's DE.

[John Bennett]

That's not to say we all haven't considered the various viewpoints, and different scenarios, but maybe we're just hardwired differently.

Tom, as far as I can see, you're bang on the money with that statement. Wise words...

JB

[ChrisGeorge]

anything really odd ? yes, but only a really crazy theory, i sense that the Graffiti is refering to Nazi Germany, rather than Whitechapel

Yes but anti-Semitism is ages old. The Nazis were only cashing in on the existing ancient anti-Semitism in Germany and Europe generally and using it for their own purposes.

Chris

[Tom_Wescott]

Minimalist vs Traditionalist

The simplest solution is that the Ripper was responsible for all three of these things.

I would agree with this, just as I agree with what Caz said before. The rub is that others, such as John Bennett and Monty on this thread, feel that this explanation is the most complex and that a simpler explanation is an unrelated hand for Stride's murder and yet another unrelated hand in the graffiti. To my mind, the purpose of the apron only becomes mystifying when comtemplating the minimalist scenario, because it the killer had no intention of leaving the graffiti, there really is no purpose for the cutting and taking of the apron piece. Since I choose to believe the Ripper wrote the graffiti, the apron piece takes on a practical purpose. My scenario - that the Ripper intentionally killed two women in different police jurisdictions and planted false clues in Goulston Street - may be incorrect, but it makes sense of all the evidence and leaves little in the way of mystery left.

I think it likely that we all, knowingly or not, interpet the evidence based on our personal biases of what we think the Ripper was like. Not necessarily WHO we think he was, but what. If we see the Ripper as a (to use a now-antiquated term) 'disorganized' sexual serial killer, then such things as a successful double murder and planned graffiti don't make much sense. If we see the Ripper as someone more planning, and perhaps more intelligent, or perhaps someone with an agenda, then it's not difficult at all to accept the various pieces of evidence.

That's not to say we all haven't considered the various viewpoints, and different scenarios, but maybe we're just hardwired differently.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Malcolm X]

Yes maybe, because he definitely targeted defenceless women only, these women because of the nature of what they did, were very easy to kill, plus it's relatively easy due to it being so dark/ late at night, to go undetected, and if seen; never seen well enough.

the way it seems to me is:-

1.....he visited whitechapel and left soon after
2.....he was from the lower to middle classes
3.....he was not from the rich upper classes
4.....Sailor boy keeps cropping up/GH
5.....George Chapman keeps comming to mind
6.....vigilante/ Pipeman

and not a lot else i'm afraid, i dont sense much more than 10 years ago.

anything really odd ? yes, but only a really crazy theory, i sense that the Graffiti is refering to Nazi Germany, rather than Whitechapel and it looks like GH inserted himself into this case, like a modern serial killer, it seems like JTR is still around today and in the future too.

BUT if he was travelling back and forth through history, then you'd see a pattern of crimes emerging and a link to this LA DE DA Jew, because this suspect description is very odd indeed..... but for JTR to reveal too much, would have been too risky.....and he might have anyway, but we're simply missing it

if JTR was telling us something, and he definitely is :-

1.....LA DE DA is not supposed to be the killer, he's telling us lot in the 21st century that he's the killer..... he only wants us to know from maybe the 1990s onwards..... he's done his FBI research and he knows that to insert himself into this case in such an obvious way, will reveal to us that he's JTR, but not to Abberline etc.
2.....JTR is probably about to start killing again, within the next 40 years!

but i cant be bothered to research this, because this is really stupid, and i'll make myself look like a total DIP STICK if i keep going on about it but i do sense this quite strongly and it does spook me quite a lot to think about it.

SO LET'S SEE WHAT HAPPENS IN THE NEXT FEW WEEKS

[Lechmere]

I think that a lot of what you said can be ‘hardened up’.

He was clearly determined and he was clearly doing what no one else except a similarly deranged and daring psychopath would do.
‘Normal’ people will always fail to see into the mind of a psychopath so his motivation – why the apron, why the message, why the double event etc will always mystify.

The simplest solution is that the Ripper was responsible for all three of these things. I tend to run with the simplest solution.
That is not the same as working out the motivation behind these acts – which are essentially unfathomable. In many ways it is a somewhat fruitless line of enquiry coming up with ‘solutions’ to the motivation.

On using the knife to evade arrest – I think that would have been unlikely that he would have done so in fact.
People assume that a policeman or Passerby might have thought twice about confronting this vicious killer who must have had a nasty looking knife about his person. This may be so.
However the psychological impulse to viciously kill his chosen prey – who were all fairly defenceless victims (which is what I think he was after rather than prostitutes per se) – is quite different from the ability to fight off or even think of fighting off an able bodied person who may confront them. The likely response would be meek submission I would suggest.