The Apron

[mariab]

Maria will probably faint but I'm quite proud of myself that I've 'come up' with a theory that a Ripper author has already come up with!

Not the fainting type, but I once had a blackout and I've fallen asleep at the movies twice. :-)

Let me see if I've got this straight.
Jolly Jack, peeved at events in Berner Street, slices up Catherine Eddowes in quick-smart time, wraps the excised organs in part of her apron and scuttles off into the night. Presumably he's heading home to preserve the organs in a jar of spirits.
Notwithstanding the fact that by this time two police forces are running around the area like blue-arsed flies, Jolly Jack again ventures out onto the streets, miraculously avoiding any wandering cops, dumps the piece of apron in a Goulston Street doorway and next takes a moment to compose an enigmatic chalked ditty on the adjacent brickwork before once again returning home for a well-earned six-week break.

LOL. I love Simon Wood.

[Fleetwood Mac]

What does Le Grand have to do with anything when facts are facts? I do see you disputing the facts here, just moving pawns. First Long was lying, now Halse was mistaken. I don’t see myself disposing of evidence to suit my theories. I welcome the evidence. More of it, in fact. And incidentally, I’ve held these theories about the graffiti YEARS before I knew anything about Le Grand, short of the fact that he existed. The main reason I like Le Grand is that, alone of all the suspects, all of the inconsistencies, gray areas, and ‘coincidences’ suddenly fit into place when he’s placed into frame. Not the case with Koz, Druitt, or that tall gay guy.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Of course at no point did I say Long was lying, and was offering a tentative possibility regarding Halse, which I suppose is in contrast with you, Tom, as you have a habit of presenting the unlikely as the almost certain.

If it's evidence you want, Tom:

1) The writing does not mention the murder or any murder.

That is the primary piece of evidence, the number one, anything else is supporting 'evidence'.

It seems some leave it at 1 and others make more out of it.

If you then subscribe to the idea that the writing was written by the murderer, then you have to move away from the writing itself and connect the apron. It follows that in order to connect the apron, you then have to believe that the writing was written that night. Not only that, but you have to believe that Jack alone had artistic intentions in that area on that night. Then you have to come up with a reason for the garbled message, and I'm yet to hear anything convincing: he was attempting to deflect suspicion? he was blaming the club members for disturbing him? In my view, these 'reasons' for the writing are some of the weakest arguments of any area of JTR I've read on this board.

In sum: there is more guesswork, a greater number of variables, to make Jack as author work.

[Phil H]

The writing does not mention the murder, but we have no idea what was in the murderer's mind and a piece of cloth from the scene is found nearby, so therefore it was written by the murderer.

That is NOT logical nor an option. The idea can really only be expressed IMHO as:

The writing does not mention the murder, but we have no idea what was in the murderer's mind and a piece of cloth from the scene is found nearby, so a link might be suggested or even inferred between the two, although the coincidence of the two objects proves nothing by itself.

I do not see that we can go further than that, however much some might WISH we could.

Phil

[caz]

Hi All,

Let me see if I've got this straight.

Jolly Jack, peeved at events in Berner Street, slices up Catherine Eddowes in quick-smart time, wraps the excised organs in part of her apron and scuttles off into the night. Presumably he's heading home to preserve the organs in a jar of spirits.

Notwithstanding the fact that by this time two police forces are running around the area like blue-arsed flies, Jolly Jack again ventures out onto the streets, miraculously avoiding any wandering cops, dumps the piece of apron in a Goulston Street doorway and next takes a moment to compose an enigmatic chalked ditty on the adjacent brickwork before once again returning home for a well-earned six-week break.

Unless you believe in fairies, this is the most preposterous scenario in history.

Regards,

Simon

I believe in history, not fairies. I accept that Eddowes was butchered between police beats; organs were removed from the scene when her flesh and blood murderer did scuttle off into the night; half her apron was dumped later in Goulston St, while two police forces were running around the area like blue-arsed flies (on account of two very real and very rare knife murders having just taken place on their respective patches); and the killer or killers did manage to avoid any wandering cops, both murders remaining unsolved to this day.

The little additional matter of whether or not the antisocial wall scribbler, who took moments out of his day to express himself ambiguously for the benefit of goodness knows whom, also happened to be a risk-taking homicidal maniac, may be pivotal to the 'do fairies exist?' question where you come from, Simon, but it ain't to me. I don't consider the killer's known actions that night to be very sensible or rational, however one chooses to flower them up or play them down. But they cannot be wished away in a cloud of fairy dust, so we deal with them how we may.

Love,

Caz
X

[Phil H]

I believe in history, not fairies. I accept that Eddowes was butchered between police beats; organs were removed from the scene when her flesh and blood murderer did scuttle off into the night; half her apron was dumped later in Goulston St, while two police forces were running around the area like blue-arsed flies (on account of two very real and very rare knife murders having just taken place on their respective patches); and the killer or killers did manage to avoid any wandering cops, both murders remaining unsolved to this day.

That reads just like a version of the Apostle's Creed (Nicean?).

The little additional matter of whether or not the antisocial wall scribbler, who took moments out of his day to express himself ambiguously for the benefit of goodness knows whom, also happened to be a risk-taking homicidal maniac ... I don't consider the killer's known actions that night to be very sensible or rational, however one chooses to flower them up or play them down. But they cannot be wished away in a cloud of fairy dust, so we deal with them how we may.

I too don't want to wish away anything, but dealing with the graffito and the apron-piece as linked is neither logical nor useful. It is something of a red-herring IMHO. Akin, I think, to the old tendency to assume that at least some of the "Ripper letters" were actually written by the killer. We don't now, usually, accord much value to that.

Why, if graffito and material can be so closely linked, don't these same theorists:

a) assume logically that the killer lived in Wentworth Dwellings, up that very staircase - there is every bit as much logic in assuming that as that whoever left the material wrote the words; and

b) if the killer was a "communicator" seek confirmation in the wider Ripper letters?

Unless, or until, someone can convincingly link the writing to the killer, nothing should be inferred from the presence of the apron-piece next to some wall-writing. Equally, any convincing link of writing and killer needs to explain why - in the context of however many murders are claimed - only this one example of communication was ever found.

Phil

[Malcolm X]

Except:

.
The writing in no way is linked to this murder. It's simply a commentary on 'the Jews', and we don't even know if it was a Jewish fella in defensive mode or someone with a grude to bear; unless one is going to jump through hoops to suggest he was anti-Semitic, or he really believed by writing: "your man is a Jew", that that would be enough to swing it.

Someone talked about evidence and logic. Well, here's a spot:

1) Does the author mention the murder?
2. No.
3) Therefore we can conclude the writing is not related to the murder.

Simple.

It is only when one then makes assumptions regarding deflecting suspicion or a nearby apron that it can be concluded that the murder and writing are related.

The evidence suggests they weren't; assumptions related to the evidence may say otherwise.

crap, do you know how stupid all of this reads, there is no evidence whatsoever that this wasn't written by the murderer....fact.

the conclusion is, it's 50:50 either way, undecided, but definitely not as you state and not even close.

it's far more than likely, written by the killer than not, simply because the apron piece on the ground means nothing at all without the message, and why did he put the apron piece there if the graffiti was already there too, why not just shove it down a nearby drain, or just wipe his hands and drop it into the street.

the apron was thus placed carefully in the doorway with the graffiti close by.....probably

you say that the killer mentions no murder..... oh yes he does, this is exactly what he's refering to, he's also refering directly to Dutfields.

many of you will disagree with me, but also; many wont.

[Trevor Marriott]

I believe in history, not fairies. I accept that Eddowes was butchered between police beats; organs were removed from the scene when her flesh and blood murderer did scuttle off into the night; half her apron was dumped later in Goulston St, while two police forces were running around the area like blue-arsed flies (on account of two very real and very rare knife murders having just taken place on their respective patches); and the killer or killers did manage to avoid any wandering cops, both murders remaining unsolved to this day.

The little additional matter of whether or not the antisocial wall scribbler, who took moments out of his day to express himself ambiguously for the benefit of goodness knows whom, also happened to be a risk-taking homicidal maniac, may be pivotal to the 'do fairies exist?' question where you come from, Simon, but it ain't to me. I don't consider the killer's known actions that night to be very sensible or rational, however one chooses to flower them up or play them down. But they cannot be wished away in a cloud of fairy dust, so we deal with them how we may.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz

I would be interested to know how you subscribe to the theory that the killer was able to do all that you belive he did at the scene of the cime in 9 mins and how he was able to effect the removal of these organs in almost total darkness with what was described as with some medical precision.

The apron piece was described as a piece surely if it had been half it would have been described as such. Likewise a note would have been made at the mortuary that half the apon was missing.

[ChrisGeorge]

Hi Caz

I would be interested to know how you subscribe to the theory that the killer was able to do all that you belive he did at the scene of the cime in 9 mins and how he was able to effect the removal of these organs in almost total darkness with what was described as with some medical precision.

The apron piece was described as a piece surely if it had been half it would have been described as such. Likewise a note would have been made at the mortuary that half the apon was missing.

Hi Trevor

Good to meet you at the Whitechapel Society conference. You may have missed the following post by Wickerman earlier in this thread.

Best regards

Chris

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'."

[Hunter]

There are many uncertainties in relation to this case, but the evidence that Kate Eddowes was wearing her apron, the killer cut it at some point and took it with him is irrefutable.

She was reported to be wearing the apron by the police at the jail.
She left at 1 o'clock in the direction of Mitre Square, not Spitafields.
If she used it as a sanitary napkin, it sure soaked up some blood in just 40 minutes... plus fecal matter.
Her apron would have been a prized possession for her. She had even mended it.
The apron was cut and Eddowes was not found with a knife on her.
She had plenty of other rags in her possession that would have been of better use than half of an apron.
The remaining portion of the apron was reported to still be attached by the string to the body.

This is a dead fish.

[caz]

To Phil H,

How did you manage to read so much more into my post than the actual words I wrote?

That's quite a feat coming from someone who advises me that 'we' should not be attempting to read anything at all into words found neatly chalked above half of Eddowes's apron.

The message is part of the case, whether or not 'we' choose to see it as a potential clue to the elusive WM's behaviour that night.

You may discard whichever potential clues you like, and you won't find me criticising your judgement for doing so; just don't expect everyone else to follow suit.

As I have always said, while the case remains unsolved I will keep all my balls in the air, thanks all the same for advising me otherwise.

Love,

Caz
X

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor

Good to meet you at the Whitechapel Society conference. You may have missed the following post by Wickerman earlier in this thread.

Best regards

Chris

Hi Chris
Nice to meet you to.

It still doesnt tell us who cut the apron piece when and where it was cut and by whom and for what purpose. Like I said before if you eliminate the theory that it was cut by the killer to either wipe his hands on or his knife or to transport the organs. What are you left with ?

Hmmmmmmmmmmm and good old Dc Halse bless him what would this mystery be without him !

[Tom_Wescott]

Of course at no point did I say Long was lying, and was offering a tentative possibility regarding Halse, which I suppose is in contrast with you, Tom, as you have a habit of presenting the unlikely as the almost certain.

The 'unlikely' I'm presenting in this case is that PC Long and DC Halse were honest and correct regarding their evidence.

According to PC Long, the graffiti and apron were not there one minute. The next minute, they were there. This is actual professional evidence that the two were left by the same person. Why is it so hard to accept now when it wasn't hard to accept in 1888?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[caz]

Hi Hunter,

These points have all been put to Trevor before, some to his face by yours truly.

He is just trying to wind us up.

Either that or he knows a lot less about women than he thinks he does.

Love,

Caz
X

[Tom_Wescott]

It still doesnt tell us who cut the apron piece when and where it was cut and by whom and for what purpose. Like I said before if you eliminate the theory that it was cut by the killer to either wipe his hands on or his knife or to transport the organs. What are you left with ?

That it was cut by the killer to be used in the purpose for which it was in fact utilized...as a 'signature' to his graffiti.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Phil H]

Caz -I really didn't read anything much into your post - per se. It didn't say much.

I simply used it as an excuse to make a wider point I wanted to register.

Phil