The Apron

[Fleetwood Mac]

No indeed, Jon.

But I still don't see what's wrong with the received wisdom i.e.
1. Killer removes organs and stuffs them into his pocket or a bag or something,
2. Rips or cuts off piece of apron to wipe hands and knife,
3. Scarpers,
4. Discards apron fragment when hands and knife are cleaned.

As you rightly say though, it's all conjecture.

Best wishes,
Steve.

Except:

In order to take the apron to wraps the organs in, then surely this is a learning exercise gleaned from one of the previous murders. In other words, it was planned in advance.

In the event it was planned in advance, why doesn't he take two pieces of apron? One for his knife; one for the organs?

[Phil H]

Sure, write your posts as you deem fit, and we shall judge likewise.

You are so generous. I shall. And what will you judge? Who made you a judge amongst us anyway, Monty? Talk of pomposity!!

I was merely bringing into question the impulsiveness of the killer.
Not very clearly.

[Ben]

Hi Fleets,

The problem I have it is this: would someone really kill a woman in order to blame 'the Jews'?

Almost certainly not, I agree with you here. But blaming the Jews would have been a means to the end of deflecting suspicion in a false direction and thus reducing his chances of capture. He would have been well-aware of the existing suspicions of the Jews, and simply took advantage of it.

It isn't certain that he removed no other items of clothing from previous victims. He may well have done in the case of Annie Chapman, for all we know.

All the best,
Ben

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hi Fleets,

Almost certainly not, I agree with you here. But blaming the Jews would have been a means to the end of deflecting suspicion in a false direction and thus reducing his chances of capture. He would have been well-aware of the existing suspicions of the Jews, and simply took advantage of it.

It isn't certain that he removed no other items of clothing from previous victims. He may well have done in the case of Annie Chapman, for all we know.

All the best,
Ben

Hi Ben,

Except it doesn't deflect suspicion at all.

It's a garbage message.

Let's say the killer scrawls this in an attempt to deflect suspicion: are the police going to read it and think: "yeah, ****, it must be 'the Jews'. Course not.

[Monty]

Sure, write your posts as you deem fit, and we shall judge likewise.

You are so generous. I shall. And what will you judge? Who made you a judge amongst us anyway, Monty? Talk of pomposity!!

I was merely bringing into question the impulsiveness of the killer.
Not very clearly.

Seeing your cantakerism with my pomposity, tis all.

Apologies if you cannot follow.

Monty

[Sally]

Well yeah..

Except it doesn't deflect suspicion at all.

It's a garbage message.

Let's say the killer scrawls this in an attempt to deflect suspicion: are the police going to read it and think: "yeah, ****, it must be 'the Jews'. Course not.

Except that it was obviously considered inflammatory enough to be removed from the wall.

So I guess the Killer-Jew connection was there to some degree in the minds of the men who saw it, eh?

[Fleetwood Mac]

Except that it was obviously considered inflammatory enough to be removed from the wall.

So I guess the Killer-Jew connection was there to some degree in the minds of the men who saw it, eh?

Except, except: it wasn't erased because this unfathomable piece of evidence clearly meant the killer was a Jew.

[John Casey]

I honestly don't think that the taking of the portion of apron has any real significance. The simplest solution in my mind is that he cut the colon, thought "oh sh*t!", did the rest of the mutilation, hurridly cut off some of the apron, and discarded it at the first available opportunity.

I imagine he had some sort of bag with him, into which he deposited the organs (which I think are his main goal - trophies).

As for the time lapse between the murder and the finding of the apron, I see no reason for him to have taken the shortest or quickest route from Mitre Sq. to Goulston St., in fact I imagine him weaving in and out of the back alleys between the two, and about an hour after the murder, finding himself in Goulston St., wiping what he could off of himself, and tossing the apron away without a second thought.

pax

[Fleetwood Mac]

If that message was written by the killer, then the killer was Jewish.

A revenge attack for something which the Jewish community had been blamed.

It's just come to me:

It was orchestrated by one of the Jewish clubs. They weren't happy that Lipski had been incarcerated for something they believed he didn't do. Schwartz was roped in to let the police know what it was all about 'Lipski'. The murderers were Lawende, Levy and Harris, which is why they couldn't agree on the features of the non existent man, and why Lawende said: "I doubt it". They then scrawled the message on the wall while someone kept watch.

The police knew all about this. So they dragged Schwartz to ID Lawende, and when Swanson said: "and he knew he was identified" it was because the police knew all about the plan and knew Schwartz knew Lawende was one of the murderers.

Dah, dah!

Case closed.

Who wants to know the names of the Zodiac Killers?

[Sally]

Except, except: it wasn't erased because this unfathomable piece of evidence clearly meant the killer was a Jew.

That's a contradiction in terms. No piece of evidence can be objectively 'unfathomable' - else it isn't evidence. And whilst we can all argue ad nauseum over what the graffito did, or didn't 'mean' it's coincidence with the bloomin bit of apron was plainly perceived as having inflammatory potential at the time.

And as such, the connection, perceived or otherwise, between the Jews and the perpetrator (or several if you prefer) cannot merely be tossed aside like a bit of old rag.

Or apron, even.

[Garza]

If that message was written by the killer, then the killer was Jewish.

Or a killer pretending to be Jewish.

[Fleetwood Mac]

That's a contradiction in terms. No piece of evidence can be objectively 'unfathomable' - else it isn't evidence. And whilst we can all argue ad nauseum over what the graffito did, or didn't 'mean' it's coincidence with the bloomin bit of apron was plainly perceived as having inflammatory potential at the time.

And as such, the connection, perceived or otherwise, between the Jews and the perpetrator (or several if you prefer) cannot merely be tossed aside like a bit of old rag.

Or apron, even.

It would have been a contradiction in terms; except, except: I was going to garnish the word evidence with something that I suppose would be derogatory to those who believe it is evidence. So, in the interests of courtesy, Sally, I left it as 'evidence'

My view: it's unfathomable and not evidence.

I'm afraid it can be discarded like an old sock (I can't possibly steal your play on words, Sally) as the police wiped it off due to the possibility that the dullards took it as read, not because some lunatic is doing the rounds and if he says the killer is Jewish then he must be Jewish.

[Garza]

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

Well we can observe the fashion style of women of that time and that class and aprons that reached the ankles were all the rage, so while it is an assumption it is a FAIR assumption that Eddowes was wearing the size of apron I see in all the photos. And seeing as "half of it" was cut off according to eyewitnesses, that's a large area of cloth, certainly bigger than I hand towel.

He could have cut it just to wipe his hands, I was just pointing out it was a probably a bigger area of cloth needed to do the job. It is probable that the killer wanted that size (for whatever reason) as it is purposefully cut, not torn.

[lynn cates]

basis

Hello Garza.

"the vast likel[i]hood is that the murderer transported the apron."

Based upon?

Cheers.
LC

[Sally]

It would have been a contradiction in terms; except, except: I was going to garnish the word evidence with something that I suppose would be derogatory to those who believe it is evidence. So, in the interests of courtesy, Sally, I left it as 'evidence'

My view: it's unfathomable and not evidence.

I'm afraid it can be discarded like an old sock (I can't possibly steal your play on words, Sally) as the police wiped it off due to the possibility that the dullards took it as read, not because some lunatic is doing the rounds and if he says the killer is Jewish then he must be Jewish.

Aha - except, except: Wiping it off at all - because the 'dullards' (ah yes, them) might take it as read, as you say - is still wiping it off because of the fear that it would prove inflammatory, and so is still a recognition of the anti-semitic feeling associated with the murders at that time.

I wasn't really suggesting (or believing, as it goes) that anyone thought at the time (necessarily) that a potential implication in the graffito of Jewish culpability should be taken as proof or evidence of actual guilt.

But that it could clearly be read as such seems beyond reasonable dispute.