The Apron

[Fleetwood Mac]

actually i'm not quite right am i, because you said that someone else might have taken Eddowes kidneys other than JTR..... FLIPPING HECK, get real please, who took them then.... the Tooth Fairy ?

The issue here is that whatever theory is subscribed to on the apron, it takes a fair bit of explaining and assuming, and it follows holes can be punched through the theory quite easily.

So, I suppose we're talking degree/probability.

If you believe he returned to the street: then that would be an unnecessary risk.

If you believe he never left the street: then where is he between 1.45 and 2.55?

If you believe he dropped the apron prior to 2.20: do we ignore PC Long?

If you believe he didn't drop the apron: then where is anything remotely approaching evidence to point towards someone else?

Even if you believe Jack took the apron: why didn't he use Eddowes' material (after all, he rifled her pockets, and instead of taking something readily available he decided to do it the hard way)?

It's a mystery, not easy to explain whatever you go with.

[Trevor Marriott]

So you have no answer to my cartel question.

Your reputation grows and grows.

Monty

and yours diminishes just as quick great isnt it

[Monty]

and yours diminishes just as quick great isnt it

Odd, that's what the girls say about your....

...You gonna answer the question about the question?

Or shall we continue this base exchange? Don't want you getting outta your comfort zone.

Fleetwood,

Actually its fairly easy to expain. However some just can't accept the simplicity as it doesn't correspond with their outlandish theories.

It doesn't sell books.

Monty

[Fleetwood Mac]

Fleetwood,

Actually its fairly easy to expain. However some just can't accept the simplicity as it doesn't correspond with their outlandish theories.

It doesn't sell books.

Monty

Fair enough, Monty.

Presumably he drops the apron.

Does he come back onto the street?

[Chava]

I love the knife-drying theory, but it doesn't jibe with the description of the bloodstains on the cloth. If he wiped his knife on the cloth there would be a line of blood where the edge of the knife is drawn against the blade. The description of the blood, which I believe is mainly in one corner, suggests to me more that he wound it round a wound to stop it bleeding. It's a big swatch of cloth but he may not have realized, in the darkness, how much he was cutting off.

[ChrisGeorge]

I love the knife-drying theory, but it doesn't jibe with the description of the bloodstains on the cloth. If he wiped his knife on the cloth there would be a line of blood where the edge of the knife is drawn against the blade. The description of the blood, which I believe is mainly in one corner, suggests to me more that he wound it round a wound to stop it bleeding. It's a big swatch of cloth but he may not have realized, in the darkness, how much he was cutting off.

If you are a man on the run, cutting off some cloth that is a big size I should imagine you'd have a good idea how big it is because it could encumber your escape. He either took that big a swathe of cloth for some practical reason or to make a point with the graffito, if he indeed wrote it.

[lynn cates]

good points

Hello Mac. Good points.

"It's a mystery, not easy to explain whatever you go with."

Now you're talking.

Cheers.
LC

[Trevor Marriott]

Odd, that's what the girls say about your....

...You gonna answer the question about the question?

Or shall we continue this base exchange? Don't want you getting outta your comfort zone.

Fleetwood,

Actually its fairly easy to expain. However some just can't accept the simplicity as it doesn't correspond with their outlandish theories.

It doesn't sell books.

Monty

The only outlandish theory here is the one you subscribe to and that is the fact that the killer of Chapman and Edddowes removed the organs after killing them.

And I will treat with contempt the personal insults you have now resorted to you are really showing your true colours now shame on you.

[Monty]

The only outlandish theory here is the one you subscribe to and that is the fact that the killer of Chapman and Edddowes removed the organs after killing them.

And I will treat with contempt the personal insults you have now resorted to you are really showing your true colours now shame on you.

Yeah, outlandish. Woefully unbelievable and wholly implausible.


As for personal insults, I shall treat with contempt the hypocrasy you have always maintained.

Monty

[Trevor Marriott]

Yeah, outlandish. Woefully unbelievable and wholly implausible.


As for personal insults, I shall treat with contempt the hypocrasy you have always maintained.

Monty

Your comments have been duly noted and filed under "bin"

[Fleetwood Mac]

I love the knife-drying theory, but it doesn't jibe with the description of the bloodstains on the cloth. If he wiped his knife on the cloth there would be a line of blood where the edge of the knife is drawn against the blade. The description of the blood, which I believe is mainly in one corner, suggests to me more that he wound it round a wound to stop it bleeding. It's a big swatch of cloth but he may not have realized, in the darkness, how much he was cutting off.

In terms of the organs causing the stain in the corner, it would depend upon method of wrapping the organs in the cloth. Trevor's theory assumes he places them in the middle; it's not beyond the realm of reason that he places it in the corner and wraps from there. It does the beg the question, however: when wrapped or rolled into a ball, will this fit into his pocket? If not, does he have a bag? If not does he just walk down the street with this thing slung over his shoulder?

My reading of the earlier murder where he took organs, is that there was no trail of blood, and no cloth taken: this would suggest that he had means of carrying the organs without need for the victims' cloth.

So, what happens that would cause him to take the cloth? A cut perhaps, as you state? Or the one thing that we do know that was different about that night - two murders. Does something happen with the Stride murder that makes taking the cloth a good idea? I'm struggling to come up with something approaching reasonable cause and effect, though.

[Wickerman]

I love the knife-drying theory, but it doesn't jibe with the description of the bloodstains on the cloth. If he wiped his knife on the cloth there would be a line of blood where the edge of the knife is drawn against the blade.

Yes the (one?) corner of the cloth was "wet with blood". You don't 'wet' a cloth by wiping your hands on it, neither, as you say, a knife blade. The wiping theory would only account for bloodstains, there was more blood on this cloth than mere stains.

An organ like a uterus, about the size of a small orange, would still contain blood, which would be ooozing out of it for several minutes after being extracted.
Any cloth used to wrap up a freshly removed uterus would leave a wet spot on the cloth, and you would need a sizable cloth to help contain the blood.
Alternately, the corner of the cloth might have been wet before the cloth was cut, perhaps that corner was nearer to her throat before he cut it away?

An internal organ is not the kind of article you would want to drop in your pocket, and the sizable piece of cloth might be too large to wrap up a uterus & kidney then fit into a coat pocket.

On the other hand, it's prettymuch taboo on here to suggest the killer might have come prepared with a bag to carry it away. So if we can't entertain a killer with his own bag, what did he carry it away in?

Sometimes our inhibitions just create more problems for ourselves.

Regards, Jon S.

[niko]

Hi everyone, I personally think he took the piece of apron because he really needed it.

What for ?

(1) To wrap up the organ's, "nah"

(2) To clean his hand's and knife, "nah" I think he would of done the same on the previous murder's.

(3) To highlight the graffito "maybe" all depend's if he wrote the graffito.

(4) To wrap around his hand because he cut himself (logical on useing a sharp knife in pitch darkness and under the circumstances) and did not want to leave a trail of blood, this explaining why the cloth was wet with blood on the corner, hmm, "interesting". All the best, Agur.

niko

[Wickerman]

(4) To wrap around his hand because he cut himself (logical on useing a sharp knife in pitch darkness and under the circumstances) and did not want to leave a trail of blood, this explaining why the cloth was wet with blood on the corner, hmm, "interesting".

That was way too much cloth to wrap around a cut, he must have sliced an artery to need that much bandage, then he wouldn't have made it to Goulston St..

Are you suggesting this cut stopped bleeding by the time he got to Goulston St.?

[niko]

Are you suggesting this cut stopped bleeding by the time he got to Goulston St.?[/QUOTE]

Hi, Wickerman, maybe he hid away to mend his wound, a torniquete or something. There's the thirty five minute's he had to play with. Which is what pc Long's statement gives me to think. If it was an artery he would of surely bleed to death without medical assistance. All the best, Agur.

niko