The Apron

[Garza]

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

Good luck.

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.

I thought Trevor was all about the dog thing. You would have thought that a dog or rat would be knawing away at the dead body rather than running around with a crappy rag.

[lynn cates]

Ockham

Hello Garza. That is definitely NOT a statement of "Ockham's Razor." The correct formulation of it I gave above. To verify, just look in his magnum opus, "Summa Totius Logicae."

Cheers.
LC

[Garza]

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

Surely investigators would have noticed blood smears like that? I would it have been enough to stop smears of blood on a doorhandle/knob.

And it also begs the question, why didn't he cut off Annie's apron?

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

Exactly, puzzling when he has just had his hands inside someone.

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.

He did know how kill very efficiently.

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.

Hmm depends of the type of glove though. I'm not saying he wore gloves. There was a bucket of water in the yard though, but I have heard/read it was not used.

[Garza]

Hello Garza. That is definitely NOT a statement of "Ockham's Razor." The correct formulation of it I gave above. To verify, just look in his magnum opus, "Summa Totius Logicae."

Cheers.
LC

Then my prof is very wrong then .

Whats your take on the apron lynn?

[Phil H]

In 1888 gloves would have been made either of some form of leather/skin - kid, chamois etc; or of material - cotton or perhaps knitted?

The only sort of glove that would have been like a "second skin" would have been of expensive leather.

Unless you are advocating "Jack" the toff, I don't see him affording such a thing. (Druitt or Tumblety might, I suppose - but are they serious contenders these days?)

Phil

[lynn cates]

answer

Hello Garza.

"Then my prof is very wrong"

I daresay. At least, his reading of William of Ockham is. There is nothing like going to the original source.

The apron? Well, count the time between Kate's death and its discovery. See the problem?

Do you recall that, in his investigation, Daniel Halse chatted up two blokes in the neighbourhood (I mean AFTER he left City turf) and thought their stories satisfactory? Wish we had a better accounting of them.

Cheers.
LC

[niko]

Hi everyone, I have read that "No mark's of blood below the middle of the body, there was no blood on the front of the clothes". With this I understand that the remianing piece of Eddowes apron was clean, except for some blood-spot's found on the apron. This blood-spot's must have been from blood dripping from the removed organ's or even from the knife, it would be too farfetched to say he cut himself, this causing the blood dripping to cause the blood-spot's.

I think he used the apron to transport the organ's, remember the weight of the organ's he removed were about 500gr to a kilo (2.2pound's) of human flesh. He then hurried to Goulston Street, whilst hiding in the door way he cleaned his hand's, I supose the knife was already cleaned and hidden away on his body, as it only takes second's to clean a freshely stained knife with blood and faecal matter.

He then must of put the organ's on his body or in a bag or something, and then headed home or to some premises he had entrance to, avoiding the lit-up area's, on saying this it means Jack was to me a local in the area.

Hmmm, the graffito, yes I think Jack could of written it, as to me it seem's to much of a coinsidence for the piece of apron and the graffito to be so close in the same location.

I belive that if the graffito was not erased by the police, it would not of taken long to someone else rubbing it off, but at the end the message got through "the juwes are the men that will not be blamed for nothing". I think the piece of apron was left there on purpose to reveal the graffito. Remember this is only my hypothesis, all the best, Agur.

niko

[Phil H]

Niko - just a few comments on your post:

... it would be too farfetched to say he cut himself, this causing the blood dripping to cause the blood-spot's.

Some (not I) have argued that IF he cut himself and became infected - given what was dripping from the corpse not unlikely - that COULD be a reason for the gap between the death of Eddowes and that of Kelly. That is, "Jack" might have been laid-up.

I think he used the apron to transport the organ's, remember the weight of the organ's he removed were about 500gr to a kilo (2.2pound's) of human flesh. He then hurried to Goulston Street, whilst hiding in the door way he cleaned his hand's...

Ok, but if the apron-piece was already wet with blood and other stuff from the organs, would it really have been usefl to wipe his hands clean - in the relative dark of the stairwell? Also where did he put the organs while using the material for cleaning purposes?

I supose the knife was already cleaned and hidden away on his body, as it only takes second's to clean a freshely stained knife with blood and faecal matter.

I have no idea how you know that, but bowing to your superior knowledge, whenere and when did he clean the knife and on what?

I'd also question whether it is so quick to clean a blade, other than superficially.

He then must of put the organ's on his body or in a bag or something, and then headed home or to some premises he had entrance to, avoiding the lit-up area's, on saying this it means Jack was to me a local in the area.

I have underlined the word, "must" - it may be your assumption, but there is no MUST about it. We simply do not know. It is, in my view, highly dangerous then to extrapolate what happened next.

Hmmm, the graffito, yes I think Jack could of written it, as to me it seem's to much of a coinsidence for the piece of apron and the graffito to be so close in the same location.

Why a coincidence? Are yuo inferring that THAT was the only piece of graffiti in the area on that night? How do you know?

I belive that if the graffito was not erased by the police, it would not of taken long to someone else rubbing it off, but at the end the message got through "the juwes are the men that will not be blamed for nothing". I think the piece of apron was left there on purpose to reveal the graffito.

With what purpose? What was the message that the killer was tryinmg to leave?

Happy to debate further,

Phil

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi all,

As I posted on another thread, the Ripper wouldn't have taken time to cut through a long, thick apron just so he could wipe his hands as he ran away. He could have done that while he was leaning over the body, or taken one of the many cloth knapkins that he had pulled lose from Eddowes' pockets. The most sensible explanation for taking the apron half over his other options is that he knew it could be identified with the victim beyond doubt.

Do you recall that, in his investigation, Daniel Halse chatted up two blokes in the neighbourhood (I mean AFTER he left City turf) and thought their stories satisfactory? Wish we had a better accounting of them.

Yes, I remember them. Perhaps one of them had a business card for his PI business?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Phil H]

As I posted on another thread, taken time to cut through a long, thick apron just so he could wipe his hands as he ran away. He could have done that while he was leaning over the body, or taken one of the many cloth knapkins that he had pulled lose from Eddowes' pockets. The most sensible explanation for taking the apron half over his other options is that he knew it could be identified with the victim beyond doubt.

Entirely plausible, but a theory not fact.

...the Ripper wouldn't have... Unless you know him, impossible to say, and no more than a possibility if we did. People often act irrationally and there are other possibilities in this case.

The most sensible explanation for taking the apron half over his other options is that he knew it could be identified with the victim beyond doubt.

Or the thought may never have passed through his mind - he had a need, to clean his hands, and did something about it, PERIOD!

Phil

[Ben]

I agree entirely with Tom here, although I would add that the apron piece also served the purpose of an organ container. The idea of removing the apron piece just to wipe his hands has always struck me as being vastly improbable.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Ben,

But the organs Jack took were so small as to fit in the palm of his hand. The apron piece was very large and more conspicuous than, say, just putting the organs in his pocket or some other container brought with him. Unless you believe the Ripper murdered in a sudden impulse, then I think it far more likely he left his home knowing with full intent what he planned to do, and would have been prepared, particularly as he'd already done this before with Chapman, so if he'd made any mistakes in that murder, he'd plan not to repeat them in the next. Evidence of this 'learning curve' is evident in the murder of Chapman, where he quickly cut through her clothes, having learned from Nichols how difficult and clumsy it was to try and attempt his mutilation under her clothes.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[lynn cates]

Great Dane?

Hello Tom. Ah, I see what you're about. Could be.

Cheers.
LC

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Phil,

Please stop pointing out opinion versus fact. I think we all know the difference. But there's a thread running through this, and it's either a single thread, as I'm arguing, or a Frankenstein thread stitched together from one coincidence after another, which is what you and the other minimalists try to argue. What I think you don't realize is that your hypothesis is just one step shy of a conspiracy, although perhaps even less tenable, as in a conspiracy there's agreed intent, whereas you are suggesting that numerous hands were unwittingly at work together to create the events of Sept. 30th.

If you consider these events as intentional on the part of the killer - the murder of Stride AND Eddowes, the taking of the apron half, the writing of the graffiti, the murders occurring in two different jurisdictions, etc. If you take the simple route and accept these without 'coincidence', then you're left with a killer far smarter than the 'average East End Joe' as is so popular amongst the minimalists. It forces you to consider the killer is quite different from what you perceive. I'm all for viable new constructs, but when you have to dismiss 80% of the evidence in order to fit a profile, then I think it's safe to say you've got the wrong profile. Please know I'm not picking on you personally at all, but I think it's unfortunate that people coming on to the case are fed the idea that everything was a coincidence, and anything to the contrary is fantasy, when the opposite is virtually sure to be the case. There IS no evidence of coincidence in the events of the double event. None at all.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Phil H]

Please stop pointing out opinion versus fact.

Tom, I'm terribly sorry, but I hadn't realised this site had become your personal fief. You seem very totalitarian and anti-freedom of expression, today.

I think we all know the difference.

I'm not at all certain you do.

What I think you don't realize is that your hypothesis is just one step shy of a conspiracy...

WHAT hypothesis, I neither have one nor have advocated one.

...whereas you are suggesting that numerous hands were unwittingly at work together to create the events of Sept. 30th.

NO TOM, I have never argued any such thing as a coherent case. I don't think a coherent case is tenable or possible at present. It is people like you who DO want to hold to what maybe an outdated hypothesis that I will challenge and argue against.

In words of one syllable, I am simply arguing against a conventional wisdom that I no longer see as entirely convincing or helpful. I am trying to look at the case with a fresh pair of eyes.

If you consider these events as intentional on the part of the killer - the murder of Stride AND Eddowes, the taking of the apron half, the writing of the graffiti, the murders occurring in two different jurisdictions, etc. If you take the simple route and accept these without 'coincidence', then you're left with a killer far smarter than the 'average East End Joe' as is so popular amongst the minimalists. It forces you to consider the killer is quite different from what you perceive.

And precisely what do I perceive, Tom? This paragraph of your post simply demonstrates you don't have the first idea of where I'm coming from. You simply wrap yourself in your familiar theory - come on out the fresh air's wonderful.

I'm all for viable new constructs, but when you have to dismiss 80% of the evidence in order to fit a profile, then I think it's safe to say you've got the wrong profile.

I think you must be thinking of the wrong man, Tom. I don't think I have ever used the word "profile" in a single post of mine. Moreover, I have no single suspect - haven't had for 20 years.

Please know I'm not picking on you personally at all, but I think it's unfortunate that people coming on to the case are fed the idea that everything was a coincidence, and anything to the contrary is fantasy, when the opposite is virtually sure to be the case. There IS no evidence of coincidence in the events of the double event. None at all.

And I'm concerned that fixed views like your's are exclusive and inhibiting. So there is why i continue to argue, debate, question and review. I find your thinking sterile and going nowhere, but to build a house of cards, assumption based on inference. I find the views of writers like AP, refreshing ebcause they make you look again. Closed minds BAD, open minds GOOD, in my book.

Phil