The Apron

[lynn cates]

read the directions

Hello Steven.

"If you're going to bung the organs down someone's grate, why bother taking them in the first place?"

Because I am convinced that Kate's slayer read the papers. "Let's see now, how did that go? Ah, like this."

Cheers.
LC

[Monty]

I'm on my phone so cannot upload the image however Foster gave the two quickest routes, one via Stoney lane, as 1550 feet and other via Aldgate High st as 1680 feet (altered from 1660 feet).

Monty

[Phil H]

Carrying it across three streets seems contra to the necessity of the act.


But human nature is unpredictable - someone who has just committed a murder may not be acting in an entirely logical way (something of an understatement) - so may have been wiping without realising entirely what he did (like Lady Macbeth) and then thrown the rag away when he realised. His mind could have been elsewhere.

Equally, he may not have noticed a convenient place to discard it earlier or there could have been other people around - wiping ones hands is one thing, throwing away a piece of cloth is another.

You can notice people in the street wiping something off the sole of their shoe, or something spilled on their clothes and it seems natural - we all do it on occasion. But if you saw someone throwing away a perfectly good linen handkerchief you might think, that looks odd, why do that?

I don't think for a moment "Jack" thought quite like that, but a similar process might have gone through his "clouded" mind.

Or there may have been others around which inhibited him from doing too much wiping or any discarding earlier than the dwellings - he might have paused there, or on several occasions, moving on as it seemed safe.

One can justify almost any conclusion you want, but my point is there is no need to complicate things or associate the apron-piece and the graffito.

Phil

[Steven Russell]

Good post, Phil. I agree entirely.

Best wishes,
Steve.

[lynn cates]

spanner

Hello Phil.

"someone who has just committed a murder may not be acting in an entirely logical way (something of an understatement) - so may have been wiping without realising entirely what he did"

Indeed. But, just to throw a spanner into the works, how can we be certain that it was the murderer who transported the apron, not someone else?

Cheers.
LC

[Garza]

Indeed. But, just to throw a spanner into the works, how can we be certain that it was the murderer who transported the apron, not someone else?

Cheers.
LC

Lynn, it is hard to be certain about most things in the JtR case, but the vast likelyhood is that the murderer transported the apron.

[Garza]

Looking at the probable apron measurements, the murderer did cut off a rather large area of cloth "just to clean his hands".

[Malcolm X]

.
i doubt he threw it, more like he wrote the graffiti first and then placed the cloth carefully under it, he was looking for somewhere that was dry and sheltered from the rain

i'm a little bit surprised that he didn't return to Dutfields and leave the cloth/ graffiti there the next day, but maybe that place was still way to hot for the next 3 days.

[Malcolm X]

Looking at the probable apron measurements, the murderer did cut off a rather large area of cloth "just to clean his hands".

it had to be be big so that it would be seen, sorry ``detected easily`` in the dark

[Phil H]

...how can we be certain that it was the murderer who transported the apron, not someone else?

For me its a simple answer, Lynn. Timescale.

The timeframe between the murder and the finding of the piece of material is not long by any real terms of reference. The simplest solution is that the man who took it, discarded it. Period.

No proof, but complications seem both unnecessary and unlikely.

Ok he might have discarded it around the corner, and a dog, the wind or something else BLEW it ito the recess. But actually, what does that add - it would simply confirm that "Jack" was not responsible for the writing on the wall. BUt I believe that anyway.

If you mean an accomplice - join the adults sometime soon.

Garza - on the size of the fragment, it was dark in the square, he probably just ripped/tor along seams using his knife - he may never have known, except in the vaguest terms, how large it was.

By the way, on what do you estimate the size - given the material no longer exists?

Phil

[Wickerman]

By the way, on what do you estimate the size - given the material no longer exists?

Phil

We don't "know" Phil, like most everything else, we guess.

When we see contemporary photo's of the typical apron worn by this class of people in the East End, we can see at the very least the apron runs from the waist to the ankles, and completely wraps around the lower body.

Example.


We take guidance from what we see the women wearing.

Regards, Jon S.

[Phil H]

We don't "know" Phil, like most everything else, we guess.

When we see contemporary photo's of the typical apron worn by this class of people in the East End, we can see at the very least the apron runs from the waist to the ankles, and completely wraps around the lower body.

Wickerman - I was responding to Garza's question/point.

I'm well aware that we don't know how big the scrap was - we simply guess (reasonably or not) about how big it was.

For all we know the piece of cloth concerned might not have been unreasonable large, and thus building assumptions around its size is rather pointless.

Malcolm X - it had to be be big so that it would be seen, sorry ``detected easily`` in the dark

Talk about making assumptions!

I doubt he threw it, more like he wrote the graffiti first and then placed the cloth carefully under it, he was looking for somewhere that was dry and sheltered from the rain

I'm a little bit surprised that he didn't return to Dutfields and leave the cloth/ graffiti there the next day, but maybe that place was still way to hot for the next 3 days.

What a load of nonsense.

To return anywhere you have to have been there previously. He may not have "returned" to Dutfield's yard because he didn't kill Stride.

Were you never taught cognitive reasoning?

Phil

[Monty]

Looking at the probable apron measurements, the murderer did cut off a rather large area of cloth "just to clean his hands".

Who stated it was cut for removal?

Monty

[ChrisGeorge]

We don't "know" Phil, like most everything else, we guess.

When we see contemporary photo's of the typical apron worn by this class of people in the East End, we can see at the very least the apron runs from the waist to the ankles, and completely wraps around the lower body.

Wickerman - I was responding to Garza's question/point.

I'm well aware that we don't know how big the scrap was - we simply guess (reasonably or not) about how big it was.

For all we know the piece of cloth concerned might not have been unreasonable large, and thus building assumptions around its size is rather pointless.

Phil, I may be mistaken but recall from somewhere that it was known how big the piece of apron was. I have just had a look through the inquest testimony in the press reports and failed to find the relevant quote but my impression is that it was a large swathe of material, say a quarter of the whole garment and not just a corner of it. Can anyone help?

All the best

Chris

[Wickerman]

Det. Sergeant. Halse:
"I noticed that a piece of her apron was missing. About half of it. It had been cut with a clean cut."

Jon
2 for the price of one (Monty/Chris)
:-)

P.S.
Ok, Henry Smith was actually present so I guess we can also give him a little credit for this:
"....the first discovery we made was that about one-half of the apron was missing. It had been severed by a clean cut'."