The Apron

[lynn cates]

nonplussed

Hello Malcolm.

"well just look at Stride, very strange isn't it"

Indeed. But ALL of it is. Things just don't add up. That leaves me nonplussed. (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[Malcolm X]

i havent made myself clear, i mean if JTR killed stride and if the apron was left at say 2.20am, if this is so..... IF...... then he almost definitely returned to Dutfields.

It is still nonsense, Malcolm.

If it's your idea then OK, but don't try to market it as fact.

The timing of the leaving of the apron-piece in Goulston St (which must inevitably be speculative) has no bearing on where Jack was at any point - excpet that he was MOST PROBABLY in Goulston St when the material was dropped (whenever that was).

Afterwards he could and probably did, go home. ut he could have wandered the streets, he could even remotely) have gone home first and then returned to leave the material (though personally I doubt it).

My concern here is that you are building up complicated chronologies of events without any foundation nor real evidence to support a word of it.

Phil

OH NO I HAVE NO EVIDENCE, i'm just putting forward a theory and i havent ever said anything to the contrary, but my theory is definitely not wild speculation..... it's definitely worth mentioning

but i tell you what is wild speculation, and that's people who think MJK was killed by someone else, that's plain rediculous !

but this is for you to defend, because sooner or later i'll ask you to explain why you think this, i'll look forward to this !

Glenn thought this too and by God he got some serious stick ! so it's fair to say that both of us like to speculate dont we, but MJK being killed by a copycat is going too far

[Malcolm X]

Hello Malcolm.

"well just look at Stride, very strange isn't it"

Indeed. But ALL of it is. Things just don't add up. That leaves me nonplussed. (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

things dont add up just like that Amanda Knox woman on tv last night, it's just impossible to nail anyone, because the DNA evidence was compromised and cross contaminated..... if you believe that !

[Phil H]

i tell you what is wild speculation, and that's people who think MJK was killed by someone else, that's plain rediculous !

But you cannot PROVE she was killed by JtR - that is just a mix of longstanding conventional wisdom and surmise.

Consider:

There was a long gap between Eddowes and MJK.

The murder was inconsistent - indoors.

The mutilations were markedly more severe.

The victim was younger than the others.

The question of access to the room make it likely that the victim KNEW her killer or that he was familiar with her room. There is little evidence of such a link in any of the other murders.

The other victims, in all probability LED JtR to the place they died - it is possible MJK did not.

I could go on.

The reasoning is very similar to that for including other murders in the series -Tabram, McKenzie, Coles.

I would also point out that the choice of the canonical five has little more to support it than the choice of the four canonical gospels. Someone - in this case Macnaghten (who was not involved in 1888) decided to affirm the five.

So I reject your comment, which won't surprise you, I am sure.

Phil

[Abby Normal]

there is something really odd about GH statement and i think the clues will be most of all in his letters.... but if they're not by him then it doesn't really matter, because he might have adjusted his statement to suit someone elses letters.

Malcolm - are you really suggesting that the "Letters from Hell" correspondence was from "Jack"?

It seems to take us back to thinking in the 60s. I thought we had got beyond that.

Phil

The biggest myth in Ripperworld are that the "from hell" (and the Dear Boss letters for that matter) are a known hoax. Neither is proven to be a hoax, and from their content alone there is possible evidence that they could be authentic. Unless there is any new evidence to the contrary they remain strong possibilities of being authentic-same as the GSG.

Serial murderers are known to leave/send messages and that is a known fact!

[lynn cates]

gap

Hello Phil. There was also a gap between Chapman and Eddowes. If one takes the "Dear Boss" seriously, it looks like there is an attempt to explain that gap.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

hoax

Hello Abby. Part of the difficulty is to explain what one means by "hoax."

Does one mean:

1. The killer did not write the letter

or

2. The letter was done as a prank?

Cheers.
LC

[Phil H]

People can read anything into anything if they so wish.

Phil

[Phil H]

Abby

Unless there is any new evidence to the contrary they remain strong possibilities of being authentic-same as the GSG.

And I'd always held you in some respect up to this point.

there is no STRONG possibility that the GSG is authentic. PERIOD.

It makes no sense, there is no agreement on its potential meaning, and there is no clear link to the cloth and thus to JtR authorship. Only those who NEED it to be genuine - as with the letters - ever argue for the link.

Sorry,

Phil

[Tom_Wescott]

Hello Phil. There was also a gap between Chapman and Eddowes.

Yes, a long gap. As in Long Liz.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

P.S. The 'Dear Boss' author got one thing right, when he said 'Grand job the last one was.'

[Tom_Wescott]

Historically speaking, Mary Kelly is of course a Ripper victim. The idea that she was not was born in the 1990's and the only evidentiary support for it comes from the gray areas of some of the evidence that, as a rule, must have multiple explanations. For instance, what Phil H calls a 'big gap', but in reality is only 5 weeks. When you read or hear something enough, it truly does effect your thought. Some time back, I asked a number of people what FIRST made them think Stride wasn't a Ripper victim...the very first idea that gave them doubt. In literally every single case, the 'fact' that changed their mind turned out not to be a fact at all, but one or more of the many myths accepted as fact at that time. Remarkably (or perhaps not so), when it was demonstrated to their own satisfaction that this view changing 'fact' was in reality an error and not fact at all, not one of them could change their view back to what it was before that error had effected their thinking, i.e. that Stride was a Ripper victim.

In the case of Kelly, because the idea that she wasn't a Ripper victim was entered into the mix so late in the game that myths couldn't really take hold, and of course because of the extent of her injuries, it clearly remains a minority view that she wasn't a Ripper victim.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Trevor Marriott]

Hello, Gentlemen,
Thanks for the replies.

I don't know what happened the night Stride and Eddowes were killed. It's that simple.

But IF the same man killed them both, you have someone who delights in taking chances and was revv'd from two murders.

Do you really believe that a man who would cut the throat of a woman in an area as crowded as Dutfield's Yard or surrounded by policemen as he was at Mitre Square would stop to consider the danger of going back out, dropping the apron piece then writing something incoherent?

Really, he would be afraid? He would be hesitant?

I think he might be glorying in it.

Have you ever been around actors after a "standing ovation" show? Do you have any idea how "UP" people get and for how long it lasts before they crash?

I am beginning to believe this killer (IF it is just one, and I'm not sure) would have likely have taken especial delight in pulling this one last thing off. He had only to drop the apron. If accosted by police while writing, he could simply disavow even having noticed the piece of debris at his feet. It was simply there, had nothing to do with him. BUT he was not caught . . .

I don't believe we can apply logic here, gentlemen. You have a crazy person, drunk with success and blood, he eluded the authorities and everyone else in a crowded yard and even under the noses of several policeman.

He was invincible!

curious

Would a crazy person have simply cut a piece of apron and took it away with him and I stand to be corrected here but was it not cut almost perfectly as i have said before having regards to her clothes being pulled up it would have been more difficult.

Besides if he did cut it surely it would have been the last thing he did and thefore the apron still attached to her would have ben clearly visible to the police and doctors but no they said her clothes were drawn up hardly likley to have cut it first.

[Trevor Marriott]

Historically speaking, Mary Kelly is of course a Ripper victim. The idea that she was not was born in the 1990's and the only evidentiary support for it comes from the gray areas of some of the evidence that, as a rule, must have multiple explanations. For instance, what Phil H calls a 'big gap', but in reality is only 5 weeks. When you read or hear something enough, it truly does effect your thought. Some time back, I asked a number of people what FIRST made them think Stride wasn't a Ripper victim...the very first idea that gave them doubt. In literally every single case, the 'fact' that changed their mind turned out not to be a fact at all, but one or more of the many myths accepted as fact at that time. Remarkably (or perhaps not so), when it was demonstrated to their own satisfaction that this view changing 'fact' was in reality an error and not fact at all, not one of them could change their view back to what it was before that error had effected their thinking, i.e. that Stride was a Ripper victim.

In the case of Kelly, because the idea that she wasn't a Ripper victim was entered into the mix so late in the game that myths couldn't really take hold, and of course because of the extent of her injuries, it clearly remains a minority view that she wasn't a Ripper victim.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Of course the gaps between the murders could be as a result of the killer being a traveller

[lynn cates]

LA

Hello Tom. As also when he went to great pains to deny that he was Leather Apron.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

Mary and liz

Hello Tom. Initially I doubted MJ before Liz. Way back when, I edited out Liz on account of the lack of mutilation. I put little stock in that now. I prefer, instead, to focus on depth of neck wound, 1 cut, not 2, and, above all, location of the body--plus the fact that her feet seem to indicate she was leaving the yard, not going into it. The cachous also create a problem for me.

Why can one not go back? I think it is related to David Hume's story. He claimed that he would indulge in metaphysical speculation and then stop and dine with his friends. Later, when he tried to go back to metaphysics, he found it "cold, strain'd and ridiculous."

I may be wrong, but that is how the whole sexual serial killer business strikes me.

But enough. Don't wish to be accused of highjacking. I'll leave that for Kos. (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC