The Apron

[Malcolm X]

How many serial killers have willingly returned to within range of the police search with incriminating evidence on their person? That really should tell a story, because as human beings our base instincts are the same: if you wouldn't do it, and I wouldn't do it, and the rest of this board wouldn't do it, and known serial killers didn't do it; then it's fair to assume Jack didn't do it.

So, we're left with a situation where either Jack dropped it between 2.20 and 2.55, which would mean Jack couldn't raise his head above the parapet until that time, or PC Long was mistaken, or someone else put it there.

no, how do you know EXACTLY what serial killers have done, that arguement from you isn't watertight.

i would've returned to Dutfields, but it does follow logic that the apron was already there in Ghoulston st, just not noticed, for sure....... but to be honest, this doesn't matter at all does it, because for me, it's, does this Graffiti refer back to Dutfields ?

the itty bitty stuff wont help you at all, because any killer can be like this, you will not recognise JTR in this lot at all, it's the overall picture that you're after...... all this lot will tell you two things only:- JTR was not insane and he was not from the rich upper classes, in other words all of this tells us nothing!

i.e 4 years ago it was :- who killed Stride? so as you can see, i havent come very far in 4 years

[Ben]

Wasn`t Chapman`s scarf missing? I think it was Donovan who described her as wearing a scarf when she left Crossingham`s.

Very good point, Jon. A scarf would have been ideal for such a grisly purpose too.

Hi Steve,

If the killer lived alone, and/or had plenty of viable containers lying around, I'm sure he would have availed himself of them. But given the likelihood that he was a member of the working class poor and lived in some sort of shared accommodation, he may have been compelled to make use of whatever rags he found on his victim, especially when they were freely available, and could so easily have afforded his clothing some protection from organ fluid seepage. I might agree that overcoats are traditionally "thick, heavy items", but in this case, the probable killer of Eddowes was wearing a pepper and salt "jacket", which suggests a lighter garment (both in colour and weight).

Nor do I believe we can safely deduce that the killer's home, or other place of safety, was close-by because he dared not walk the streets for too long with body parts about his person. We are not talking about a "normal" person here.

A study of other serial killers would indicate a tendency to minimize any risk that isn't associated with the primary goal of murder and, in this case, mutilation. For instance, the fact that the killer wasn't strictly "normal" evidently didn't preclude him for having the foresight to avoid heavy blood-staining or allowing his victims to cry out etc.

In response to one or two recent comments from other posters regarding the supposed "simplest" explanation, the removal of the rag purely for cleaning purposes (which people suggest he did en route home in full view) is most emphatically nothing of the sort. He could easily have cleaned off the visible, incriminating signs of blood and fecal matter in less time that was required to remove the piece of apron.

All the best,
Ben

[Phil H]

many of the police/ historians think that this belongs to JTR/ Eddowes and that it's maybe about anti-semetism, this is a long time before even you and i were born...... but it's me that's saying that it's also linked to Dutfields too.

Malcolm, I am old enough to remember when all the speculation was that "Juwes" referred to the three masonic killers (Jubela, Julbelo and Jubelum as I recall) of Hiram Abif and thus was a link to freemasonry. Huge amounts of energy - all fruitless - were expended on following the red-herring, set off by Stephen Knight (who appears to have had a deep-seated anti-masonic bias). So tin-pot, half-baked, ill-argued fantasies by a new generation of ripper-enthusiasts are hardly going to impress.

THERE IS (and never has been) ANY CONCENSUS ON WHAT THE GRAFFITO MEANS WHOMEVER WROTE IT.

this is a long time before even you and i were born......

NOT that long before I was born in comparative terms. I could still have spoken to people around at the time. We have people on this site who visited Hanbury St in the 60s before No29 was demolished - so there is no real issue about the passage of time.

But more important, the point is irrelevant. MOST historical period which are studied are about periods more remotely in the past than JtR. Yet people still take an interest - they do so by means of well-established, well-tried and fairly simple logical processes and rational argument that constructs cases for peer review.

SO...

Before trying to dismiss my points, please:

LIST the "many of the police/ historians [who] think that this belongs to JTR/ Eddowes and that it's maybe about anti-semetism" [your spelling]

and ITEMISE, as it is you "that's saying that it's also linked to Dutfields too" your reasons for believing that to be the case. You seek to dismiss my arguments with an airy wave of the hand, but do not cite an reasons for refuting me.

That is neither informed nor well-mannered.

The impression you give is that you are simply regurgitating conjecture, speculation and surmise, which is neither impressive nor convincing and useless to anyone.

Phil

[John Bennett]

In response to one or two recent comments from other posters regarding the supposed "simplest" explanation, the removal of the rag purely for cleaning purposes (which people suggest he did en route home in full view) is most emphatically nothing of the sort. He could easily have cleaned off the visible, incriminating signs of blood and fecal matter in less time that was required to remove the piece of apron.

All the best,
Ben

I guess the real reason for the removal of the apron is open to conjecture. Containing the removed organs? Wiping of hands/knife?

We'd have to see how the apron was stained to get any reasonable idea and unfortunately there seem to be different accounts as to exactly HOW it was stained.

But the apron piece WAS removed, that much is certain. And the simplest explanation is that the killer dropped/threw it into the doorway, though as with everything Ripper-related, that explanation can also be picked apart.

[Phil H]

John, I endorse all you say.

The point though is that over-elaboration of the motive for removing an apron-piece is neither needed nor convincing.

In almost every case I have seen (probably all) the poster proposing a complex motivation and sequence of events has an axe to grind - a personal theory that requires such a theary. That, in my view, is putting cart before horse.

As taking cloth to carry extracted organs is not evidence in other murders in the alleged sequence, I prefer to emphasise the cleaning rag view as the most obvious and immediate solution. I have NO axe to grind.

Phil

[Malcolm X]

i keep telling you why i think it's linked to Dutfields and who i think killed Stride, in fact in quite a lot of detail, yes i can only give you conjecture/ speculation, this is the problem.

this is the same as you saying that MJK was killed by someone else, it's pure speculation only, all of this is, i'm deffo not insulting you, i'm just putting forward my theory, it's you that's taking it personally, no idea why.

i have no axe to grind, only my theory, i never insult anyone, but i'm very fixated and dogmatic, maybe it's this that's annoying you.

i'm only online once a day and i quite often miss posts, so if i've ignored you i'm sorry, so if these's something that you really want to talk about...i.e is MJK a copycat, you must open your own post because if not i'll definitely miss it.

[Ben]

We'd have to see how the apron was stained to get any reasonable idea and unfortunately there seem to be different accounts as to exactly HOW it was stained.

Indeed, John. A good point.

Didn't one of the witnesses recall that it was heavily saturated in one corner?

All the best,
Ben

[John Bennett]

As taking cloth to carry extracted organs is not evidence in other murders in the alleged sequence, I prefer to emphasise the cleaning rag view as the most obvious and immediate solution. I have NO axe to grind.

Phil

Certainly one account says that it was stained as if cleaning hands/ a knife. Dr. Gordon Brown stated:

"On the piece of apron brought on there were smears of blood on one side as if a hand or knife had been wiped on it"

(Inquest report, The Times, 5 Oct 1888).

[GregBaron]

Abnormal psychology...

How many serial killers have willingly returned to within range of the police search with incriminating evidence on their person? That really should tell a story, because as human beings our base instincts are the same: if you wouldn't do it, and I wouldn't do it, and the rest of this board wouldn't do it, and known serial killers didn't do it; then it's fair to assume Jack didn't do it.

If the murderer is a psychopath Fleetwood, he doesn't think or feel as normal humans do. The preppy murderer in Manhattan some time back returned to the scene of his crime with others and watched from a stoop. Ted Bundy drug a dead body up the stairs of an apartment building in which others lived and drove around with detached heads and hands in his trunk. If Jtr was a psycopath and not a schizophenic, we can't make guesses about his behavior based on what we would do, so yes it's possible he returned to the streets with incriminating evidence on his person. Obviously, based on the murders, this individual did not possess a normal fear factor.

I don't have anything further to add.


Greg

[John Bennett]

Indeed, John. A good point.

Didn't one of the witnesses recall that it was heavily saturated in one corner?

All the best,
Ben

Yes, I believe so. And PC Long said that part of it was wet with blood.

[Lechmere]

With reference to Annie Chapman's neck scarf - it was still in place when she was killed, when she was examined and was among her possessions in the morgue.

[Phil H]

malcolm

I'm not taking anything "personally", I assure you. What I am doing is to seek to remind people that there is an "historical method" which is designed for exactly such purposes as these. It's about standards and the reputation of the JtR case as an acceptable subject for study.

I was vastly impressed and encouraged by the emergence of a vastly superior (in comparison to earlier works) methodology around 1987. Since then we have all been assisted by the publication (Evans & Skinner) of the files and correspondence, and by other scholarly books. We also have sites like this which allow a level of discussion and debate in real time, unthinkable when I was younger.

Is the only purpose of all that effort to be that sites like this send us back to the journalistic approach and cranky explanations that we had in the 60s and 70s?

The difference between us Malcolm, on looking at how the evidence is handled, is that I do not try to link anything into a theory, or to justify my conjectures or questioning of the evidence into any sort of argument or theory.

I couldn't give a cuss who killed Stride, to be honest. Kidney's responsibility or not is of tangential interest to me. But there are enough differences between that murder and others to suggest that another hand MIGHT have been responsible, and once you ask that question you also allow a view - well, if "Jack" didn't kill Stride, what does that say about Eddowes and the timings.

NOTE - I have simply asked questions. I have not sought to elaborate or conjecture anyone's movements, motives or actions.

As to MJK - again there are clearly differences between her murder and earlier ones in the series. So one asks questions.

What I find is that others don't want to ask the questions or examine their implications. Even though it is clear that the media had a huge hand in the way we perceive the case.

On the number and identity of victims - its is OK (it seems) to question whether some earlier and later killings might be added to the series, but not the canonical five? Why? If there were more killings than five, MM was wrong! If there were less he was wrong!! Either way the number is just one man's view - and he is quesioned deeply about other matters. Why not on the five I wonder?

I also, by the way, have come to believe that there are arguments to justify including McKenzie in the total.

Also, there is I think, a faily well established concensus (I seem to recall a poll) that somewhere there must be earlier murders or attacks by JtR. Nichols seems to confident to be a first time. So again the numbers and identity of victims can be questions.

But again, please note that I have not built anything on my questions, I have not extraolated my thinking into a theory. Why - because to do so would be premature and IMHO amateur (in the worst meaning of that word).

I therefore will continue to seek to save those who indulge such whims from themselves.

Phil

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Phil

There is no need for any of this spurious elaboration.

"Jack" killed Eddowes, cut off some material to clean himself up, discarded it in an open doorway and went home. End of story.

But he didnt need to do that and besides if he had done as you suggest he has gone an awful long way before discarding it.

If we go down this conspiratorial ratholes we'll soon be asking not who was JtR, but who was the only person in London not involved.

If some of this stuff appeared in an undergraduate history essay you'd get Z minus for misuing evidence, not arguing logically and creating scenarios out of whole cloth. It may be fun, but it's neither big nor clever, let alone grown up.

Phil

[Ben]

That's the one, John.

From the Times' recording of the Eddowes inquest, 12th October:

By Mr. Crawford. - He had not noticed the wall before. He noticed the piece of apron first, and then the words on the wall. One corner of the apron was wet with blood.

This is possibly more consistent with organ-transportation than hand/knife-wiping, in my opinion. Although he may well have done both.

[John Bennett]

With reference to Annie Chapman's neck scarf - it was still in place when she was killed, when she was examined and was among her possessions in the morgue.

Yes, isn't this where we get that old chestnut about the head being held on by the scarf that was occasionally peddled by authors in the early 20th century?