The Apron

[Scott Nelson]

Does anyone know if this was a half apron or a full apron?

The apron was half full.

[Wickerman]

Out of control is spot on, frenzied and ferocious attacks but are we to be believe that suddenly he regains control to carefully remove organs and carefully cut a piece of apron ?

And......carefully write a coherant piece of poetic graffiti, and all this after being a staggering drunk in Berner St.?

Sounds like a real dog's breakfast of a theory...

Jon

[Wickerman]

Hi Simon,

It is possible that the killer's impoverished circumstances and living conditions meant that he didn't have much in the way of spare cloth lying around, and that he therefore fully intended to make use of the victim's apparel for the purposes of organ transportation.

It's equally possible that he needed the organs well wrapped so as not to soil the inside of his nice leather bag...

[Supe]

Trev,

Oh so now the killer can see perfectly in the dark so as to see a tear in an apron which was drawn up along with all the other clothes and cut along the tear.

Considering all the years you have been around and the two books you have written (you did write them, correct?) one would think you would have some rudimentary knowledge of the several murders. As it is, no one cut along a tear -- in the dark or upon a sunny say. There was a patch in the apron, covering a tear, a hole, a burn, whatever, and the apron cut divided that patch, thus providing proof positive the two parts were from the same apron.

If you are going to shoot your mouth off do learn the facts.

Don.

[mariab]

The apron was half full.

Is that an optimist's view or what? ;-)

[Hunter]

I've just been through the Sourcebook looking up all references to the apron. One thing is clear: It is the portion found with Eddowes' body which shows "spots" of blood; the Goulston St. piece is much more heavily stained, Dr. Brown even stating, "... as if a hand or knife had been wiped", and PC Long, "... covered in blood".

It amazes me how some dismiss the testimony of those who were at the scene.

Exactly.

[Tom_Wescott]

The simple truth of the apron

Yes Steve,

It amazes me how some dismiss the testimony of those who were at the scene.

Monty

To be fair, I think you might be throwing stones at glass houses here. After all, you're among the throng who dismiss PC Long's sworn testimony regarding the missing 30 minutes between the Ripper fleeing Mitre Square and the apron and graffiti being discovered.

Steven and Simon,

You guys are hitting upon the point I've been making for years. The traditional ways of explaining the necessity to take the apron half simply do not cut it (pardon the pun). He did not need it to wipe his hands or knife or carry organs. There's one over-riding practical purpose for the apron, and that was to qualify the graffiti. Period. This is supported by those missing 30 minutes that so many are anxious to right off with 'Long was mistaken/lying'. The Ripper left Mitre Square and, as we would suspect, went somewhere safe to clean up, change, deposit the organs, and head back out. He then left the graffiti and apron piece. It is not evidence that he was 'heading back towards Berner Street' as typically claimed, although he may have been. He likewise might have been heading the opposite direction.

In order to dispose of the graffiti as evidence, researchers have had to first create unworkable excuses for his taking the apron, and then completely dismiss the testimony of a police officer. Does this work for you? It sure doesn't with me.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Steven Russell]

It's an interesting slant, Tom but I'm not convinced.

Your man would have to have been pretty confident that
a) the apron piece would be found,
b) it would be matched to the other portion,
c) it would be linked to the graffito, and
d) the meaning of the graffito would be understood.

Otherwise why bother with the whole enterprise?

Three out of four ain't bad I suppose but what you call the traditional explanations seem simpler and therefore more attractive - to me at least.

With regard to a), I wonder what condition the streets were in? That the apron was noticed at all suggests they may not have been so filthy and full of garbage as one might think. I suppose they must have had some sort of bin men or street cleaners and I know there were horse dung collectors.

Best wishes,
Steve.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Steve. I don't see any reason at all why the killer wouldn't expect the apron to be found. And he should naturally expect it to lead to the discovery of the graffiti. As for the understanding of the graffiti, had it been photographed, I don't think it would have remained the mystery it has. The Green River Killer wrote a letter to the police that was dismissed as a hoax. But clearly he didn't think it would be, know what I mean?

Consider that there was apparently not a single other piece of graffiti in the area in the same hand and that the people in the building could not say that the graffiti pre-existed the murders. When coupled with the other case-related evidence that I mentioned, everything points to it having been written by the killer. The alternative is much, much harder to swallow, I would say.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Steven Russell]

Consider that there was apparently not a single other piece of graffiti in the area in the same hand and that the people in the building could not say that the graffiti pre-existed the murders.
Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[My emphasis in the quote]

Hello, Tom.
I can't see how the hand is relevant since we do not know the killer's style. Where does this information come from by the way and are you saying that much graffiti existed in the area but in different hands?

I suppose if not a single person from the building remembered seeing the graffito before, this could be considered suggestive (is this the case?).
On the other hand, it was written quite small and if graffiti was commonplace, people might not have paid it any attention as they walked past.

Best wishes,
Steve.

[ChrisGeorge]

Consider that there was apparently not a single other piece of graffiti in the area in the same hand and that the people in the building could not say that the graffiti pre-existed the murders.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[My emphasis in the quote]

Hello, Tom.
I can't see how the hand is relevant since we do not know the killer's style. Where does this information come from by the way and are you saying that much graffiti existed in the area but in different hands?

I suppose if not a single person from the building remembered seeing the graffito before, this could be considered suggestive (is this the case?).
On the other hand, it was written quite small and if graffiti was commonplace, people might not have paid it any attention as they walked past.

Best wishes,
Steve.

Sorry, Tom, but as far as I know, there is no information on whether there was any graffiti in the area at the time the infamous inscription was found. So we don't know if there was a lot of graffiti in the area or no other graffiti, let alone if any might have been in the same hand.

Best regards

Chris

[lynn cates]

frame

Hello Tom.

"There's one over-riding practical purpose for the apron, and that was to qualify the graffiti."

You mean a frame? Can't disagree.

Cheers.
LC

[Scott Nelson]

Hi Steve. I don't see any reason at all why the killer wouldn't expect the apron to be found. And he should naturally expect it to lead to the discovery of the graffiti.

You ascribe too many post-murder plots to the killer, Tom. He may have just killed out of rage and didn't gave a rat's ass about leaving behind any clues.

I would bet that he never read any newspaper stories, and was oblivious to anything other than occasional street talk about the crimes.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Steve and Chris,

The other suggestion at the time was that a neighborhood kid wrote the graffiti, yet why only ONE graffiti? Why would a precocious kid (or adult) with a piece of chalk leave only this one graffiti behind? It's a minor point, but it adds up. If the graffiti were truly unrelated, there would be SOMETHING pointing to that. And yes, white chalk on black dado next to the entrance would be noticed by anyone entering.

Hi Lynn,

Frame? Not sure I understand.

Hi Scott,

Anything is possible, but literally every piece of evidence points to the graffiti having been written by the killer. And incidentally, I don't think it's coincidence that he waited until after the Nichols and Tabram inquests had ended before killing again, so yes, I believe he most certainly read the papers.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[ChrisGeorge]

Hi Steve and Chris,

The other suggestion at the time was that a neighborhood kid wrote the graffiti, yet why only ONE graffiti?

Hi Tom

I think the suggestion that a kid wrote it is a modern idea not one that was suggested at the time, unless you can produce some evidence that someone said so at the time. I am open to be corrected.

Thanks

Chris