The Apron

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hello Mac. Are you suggesting that Daniel Halse dropped off the piece of apron when he left the City territory and went to the Wentworth Model buildings on Met Territory?

Cheers.
LC

Ahhh, so my theory has had an airing previously! Not treading new ground, then!

There's always Watkins or Watkins and Harvey together.

Has anyone suggested the City Police may have done it to have the public think the murderer diod not live in the City - didn't want vigilante groups and the like forming and all the negative press?

[lynn cates]

clarification

Hello Mac. Umm, I did not say I endorsed that view. I merely asked for clarification.

Cheers.
LC

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hello Mac. Umm, I did not say I endorsed that view. I merely asked for clarification.

Cheers.
LC

The theory's in its infancy, Lynn.

I'll pin it on any one of Halse, Watkins, Harvey or even Morris (who followed, but doesn't say when).

[lynn cates]

Harvey

Hello Mac. I underand.

Tell me, are you linking any of this to Harvey's being sacked?

Cheers.
LC

[Ben]

In order for this to work

No, sorry Fleets, it works perfectly well already. With respect, I'm really not sure what is so taxing about a perfectly basic premise, i.e. that the killer wished to deflect suspicion in a Jewish direction through the message and accompanying apron portion. This is precisely what various senior police officials took to be the killer's agenda, and I feel their opinions carry weight. In fact, they are lent additional support from the antics of subsequent serialists who have also used crime scene evidence to divert suspicion in a false direction.

"I would have drawn a picture of myself complete with beard and spectacles, but I don't have time as I have to go home to count my money"

I'm afraid I have no idea what you mean.

If this is someone trying to throw the police off the scent, it's more likely that the fella actually was Jewish and he's undertaking a spot of double-bluff.

No, obviously not.

That's vastly more complicated, and therefore considerably less likely.

[ChrisGeorge]

Ahhh, so my theory has had an airing previously! Not treading new ground, then!

There's always Watkins or Watkins and Harvey together.

Has anyone suggested the City Police may have done it to have the public think the murderer diod not live in the City - didn't want vigilante groups and the like forming and all the negative press?

Hello Fleetwood Mac

We have no indication that there was any police meddling with the evidence. The police were as perplexed as everyone else about the crimes.

In a sense, the killer was ahead of them at every step, and they probably didn't know why the piece of apron was dropped nor why the inscription was written -- if it was linked to the apron. We are unsure whether it was written by the killer now but all the information from the time seems to show that the police apparently thought the murderer wrote it.

For a City policeman to drop the apron to plant it in Met territory seems rather immaterial once you realize the neighborhood where all the crimes took place was a tight little area. If the killer was a local man, he could have lived either in City or Met territory.

Sorry but I don't think your theory has much going for it, matey.

All the best

Chris

[Garza]

Hello (again) Garza. Actually, Ockham's Razor states;

"Entia non sunt multiplicanda, sine necessitate"

I fail to see the application here.

Cheers.
LC

Lynn, It does apply here.


Let me put it this way, what reason is there for me to believe than someone other than the killer transported the apron.

Out of interest what is your hypothesis on what happened to the apron?

[lynn cates]

application of the rule

Hello Garza.

1. What entities are being multiplied?

2. Why do we think we are free of the "sine necessitate" clause?

Cheers.
LC

[K-453]

Large piece of cloth:

“Jack” must have had muck all over his hands, and likely his arms, too. (My hypothesis is he pushed up his sleeves for work.)
To clean it away, he needed a large towel. Something of handkerchief-size is not sufficient. It is soon covered with dirt and only rubs and smears this dirt around instead of cleaning it away.

Time gap:

PC Long made a search of the staircases after he found the cloth. This means, if he did not get somebody to open the doors for him, the staircases were open and accessible from the street.
What if “Jack” hid there for a while, and, when leaving, dropped the cloth?
Of course, he would have manoeuvred himself into a trap then, but maybe the staircases of 108-119 were the nearest bolthole he could vanish into when danger approached.
Dropping the cloth at the door instead of leaving it on the stairs is inconsistent, but, who knows? He could have been confused.

[Tom_Wescott]

Garza,

The dog wrote the graffiti to. I'm surprised something so obvious hasn't occurred to you before. Come on, man, get with it!

And I'm curious about this new suspect, Occam, with his razor. Does he fit Lawende's description?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mariab]

Quote Fleetwood Mac:
"I would have drawn a picture of myself complete with beard and spectacles, but I don't have time as I have to go home to count my money"

I'm afraid I have no idea what you mean.

He's referring to a caricature of “Jewishness“ as perceived in the 19th century, Ben.


Lynn, there's no necessitas to start multiplying entities here! Garza put it quite right:

Let me put it this way, what reason is there for me to believe than someone other than the killer transported the apron.

And by the by, I'm working it with the Jewish Society, so wish me luck.

The dog wrote the graffiti to.

I thought it was a giant rat? By the by, Trevor Marriott might have recently abandoned his suspect Feigenbaum, but I think he still subscribes to the giant rat theory, which would fit better for a graphic novel than Feigenbaum anyway.

And I'm curious about this new suspect, Occam, with his razor. Does he fit Lawende's description?

LOL. But you're quoting the movie Contact.

[Garza]

Might be going off on a tangent here, but bare with me.

If JtR cut off the apron to clean his hands, it is a reasonable deduction that he was bare-handed during at least this kill.

As I was reading over the Annie Chapman case last night, there was no mention of blood on the door handle of the back door, the corridor or the front door of 29 Hanbury Street, which you would expect from some one who has just butchered someone and made their exit that way. Unless of course their was an alleyway behind the yard - but surely there would have blood on the gate/fence that he would have to transverse (if there was a gate/fence).

[Phil H]

There was no alley way behind No 29, the only access to the yard was along the passage from the front door.

In the case of Chapman, I think he may have wiped his hands on her clothing. He may have felt he had more time.

Doorknob apart I am aware of no accounts of drops of blood in the passage or of bloody footprints.

One of the remarkable features of the killings is, despite all the gore, how "Jack" kept his feet from ever touching the pooling blood. (In part, of course, because he ensured he worked from the side opposite to where the cut throat was bleeding out.

I haven't seen anyone seriously suggest that "Jack" wore gloves while doing the mutilations - I think they would have been restricting and made him too clumsy.

Phil

[Garza]

Hello Garza.

1. What entities are being multiplied?

2. Why do we think we are free of the "sine necessitate" clause?

Cheers.
LC

Its hard for me to say if you don't state your hypothesis lynn. :-)

Like I said Occum Razor states between two hypotheses, the one that makes the fewest assumptions based on evidence is usually the correct one.

[Garza]

Garza,

The dog wrote the graffiti to. I'm surprised something so obvious hasn't occurred to you before. Come on, man, get with it!

And I'm curious about this new suspect, Occam, with his razor. Does he fit Lawende's description?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

lol I will try