The Apron

[lynn cates]

simple

Hello Phil.

"The simplest solution is that the man who took it, discarded it."

Ah, but simplest is not always best.

The quip about adults adds nothing to the discussion, as I'm sure you are aware.

Cheers.
LC

[Ben]

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.

But we know the police went one better than that, Fleets. They took the message to be the act of someone attempting to throw suspicion upon the Jews, at least according to Charles Warren, Henry Smith and others. Many other serial killers have resorted to the strategy of implicating innocent groups and individuals, and given the widespread anti-semitism in the district, it would be surprising if this particular killer bypassed the opportunity.

[Fleetwood Mac]

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

I'd like to think the police wouldn't have thought: "well, if the lunatic says he's Jewish, then he must be Jewish". In the event that is the limits of police know-how then god help us all.

Didn't we start at the point where I said: "the killer would not have convinced anyone that the killer must be Jewish"? Maybe I should have added: "those who mattered", i.e. the very people he supposedly tried to 'throw off the scent'.

Come on Sally, it would have to be the worst attempt at framing some since John Pizer was chased around the block because he wore a leather apron.

[Ben]

People still seem to be envisaging the killer as someone with plenty of disposable organ containers and bags lying around, which does rather surprise me. If the killer was a member of the working class poor in the district, i.e. the majority, this is not very likely. If he needed something with which to transport the organs - which IS likely - then what could be better than a freely available piece of apron?

[Fleetwood Mac]

But we know the police went one better than that, Fleets. They took the message to be the act of someone attempting to throw suspicion upon the Jews, at least according to Charles Warren, Henry Smith and others. Many other serial killers have resorted to the strategy of implicating innocent groups and individuals, and given the widespread anti-semitism in the district, it would be surprising if this particular killer bypassed the opportunity.

I dunno, maybe I'm giving Jack more credit than you or the policemen. It doesn't really matter what the police believed (just their opinion, and quite clearly they did not take it as read that the killer was Jewish); what matters is whether or not Jack was stupid enough to think that the writing would lead the police to believe the killer was Jewish? I don't think so. I can't imagine any living creature on this planet would write that and expect it to do the trick.

And, why didn't he wait until he arrived at home before writing to the newspapers/police? Much safer, and he could have thought it through.

I would argue the opposite of Tom's version: this writing makes no sense if penned by the killer.

[Garza]

[/QUOTE]

Hello Garza.

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

Based upon?

Cheers.
LC

Based upon he had his bloody paws all over it. Logic dictates that the vast likelyhood is that the murderer took it with him (for whatever reason), if you have evidence that says otherwise lynn, please share .

[Fleetwood Mac]

People still seem to be envisaging the killer as someone with plenty of disposable organ containers and bags lying around, which does rather surprise me. If the killer was a member of the working class poor in the district, i.e. the majority, this is not very likely. If he needed something with which to transport the organs - which IS likely - then what could be better than a freely available piece of apron?

Fine, Ben.

So why does he discard it? What is the point? He's going to take the organs home, presumably, as why carry them just to throw them away (unless he has passed them on to someone); so the organs are incriminating, as is the apron. The organs would have incriminated him, so why throw away a supporting piece of evidence?

[Garza]

Hello Phil.

"The simplest solution is that the man who took it, discarded it."

Ah, but simplest is not always best.

The simplest solution, given all factors are equal tends to be the correct one ~ Occum's Razor

[Sally]

I'd like to think the police wouldn't have thought: "well, if the lunatic says he's Jewish, then he must be Jewish". In the event that is the limits of police know-how then god help us all.

Didn't we start at the point where I said: "the killer would not have convinced anyone that the killer must be Jewish"? Maybe I should have added: "those who mattered", i.e. the very people he supposedly tried to 'throw off the scent'.

Come on Sally, it would have to be the worst attempt at framing some since John Pizer was chased around the block because he wore a leather apron.

Ah - we're being serious here? Oh, well in that case:

Your logic appears to be that the 'unfathomable' text of the graffito wouldn't have fooled a blind kitten, let alone a police officer because, presumably, it is unfathomable?

That's a circular argument, isn't it, based on your personal opinion, which you are projecting on to the police who witnessed the graffito at the tiime?

The graffito was clearly not viewed as 'unfathomable', was it, else there would have been no motivation for erasing it. There we are. It was viewed as anti-semitic, and too inflammatory to remain, given the circumstances; which, lest we forget were that it appeared in close proximity to a portion of an apron identified as belonging to the latest victim of the doing the rounds murdering lunatic.

If we're asking whether anybody thought that the implication of Jewish culpability in the graffito must mean that the lunatic was a Jew - well then, I'd have to say, who knows? It's next to impossible to tell what people think unless they tell you.

If we're asking whether the killer could have written it - yes, certainly, could have. I can see that you think the message would have been a bad attempt at framing were this the case; but you're coming at it from your own perspective. You have no idea - and who does? - what sort of intellect the writer of the graffito had, what his ideas were when writing it, etc. - Again, impossible or next to it to tell.

For all you, or I know, it could've been written by the lunatic himself, fondly believing as he was penning the unfathomable finger-pointing message that he was a very clever boy.

Perception is difficult to guage.

[lynn cates]

inference

Hello Garza. I still don't understand your dictum concerning logic. It does not follow from any deductive inference. If, however, it is an inductive one, please explain how you arrived at it.

As far as vast likelihood goes, I am at a loss to see what is "vast" about it.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

Ockham

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

"Entia non sunt multiplicanda, sine necessitate"

I fail to see the application here.

Cheers.
LC

[Fleetwood Mac]

Ok, how about this for a proposition:

Two doctors had Eddowes killed at 1.40 at the earliest.

Watkins arrives at 1.44.

Jack hasn't finished.

Watkins disturbs him.

When Watkins goes to Morris's door, he states he knocks at the door - unusual when the door is ajar, he knows Morris is inside and he has just found a butchered woman. Could be just me, but I'd run inside - never mind the niceities in a situation like that. Why does Watkins say this: to present an air of control that would go against having just seen Jack.

The top brass on the scene are aware of this.

They don't want the press to know, nor the public.

They cut the apron and drop it off, thereby suggesting Jack had enough time to cut the cloth and gather the organs, i.e. he wasn't disturbed.

Hot or cold?

[Ben]

Hi Fleets,

I must agree with Sally here. I don't know quite why you think the killer would have been "stupid" to expect his message to do the trick of implicating the Jewish community. That's precisely what the police thought he did, and at no stage did they revise their opinion on the grounds that the killer wouldn't be "stupid" enough to do so in such a fashion. It wasn't as though the message completely lacked subtlety. He didn't write anything as blatant as "I'm the killer, and I'm a Jew" for instance.

And, why didn't he wait until he arrived at home before writing to the newspapers/police?

Because there was no guarantee of the police accepting such a communication as genuine, unlike a message that was scrawled above a piece of crime-related evidence that was most assuredly deposited there by the killer.

So why does he discard it? What is the point?

As I suggested earlier on, this may have been done to lend some validity to the message. Another option is that he was very near home at that stage, and that the rag had absorbed enough of the gunk from the organs.

All the best,
Ben

[lynn cates]

question

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

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hi Fleets,

I must agree with Sally here. I don't know quite why you think the killer would have been "stupid" to expect his message to do the trick of implicating the Jewish community.

Hi Ben,

In order for this to work:

The killer is not Jewish.

The killer wants the police to believe the killer is Jewish.

Right, here's what we'll do: I'll drop the apron and write a message along the lines of: "I'm Jewish, look at me, I'm Jewish; 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".

What?

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.

It wasn't as though the message completely lacked subtlety. He didn't write anything as blatant as "I'm the killer, and I'm a Jew" for instance.

Well, if he's attempting to say he's Jewish then surely he is saying he's Jewish; or is he saying I may be Jewish or I might not be, look for a human being and you'll have your man"?