The Apron

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi FM

'Wrong'?

I certainly can't prove it.

But, it's not a bad argument at all.

In terms of logisitics and practicality:

Think about it. A full apron, tied at the waist from the back, she's on her back: how exactly does he pull this thing up in order to do his mutilation bit? Either he reaches round the back and unties it (tricky when she's lying on her back), or he cuts the apron.

But we dont know the size of the apron could have been a small one as i previoulsy posted. Everyone is suggesting it was a full length one.
In terms of why he took it, then that's an altogether different question which does not negate the aforementioned proposition.

[lynn cates]

right

Hello Trevor. Precisely.

I appreciate a voice of reason, and not just bluster.

Cheers.
LC

[Phil H]

You are back to your scurrilous interpolation of your own comments within other's posts. Please desist.

But he didnt need to do that

We don't know WHAT he needed to do or not. Siomply that he removed a piece of material. My preferred explanation introduces the least surmise, as i see it. I prefer it to your ornate fripperies, at least.

and besides if he had done as you suggest he has gone an awful long way before discarding it.

Again, the term "long way" is judgemental, given that we know nothing of his state of mind, preoccupations, delaysor anything else. But it was, I believe, shown long ago, that on the most logical route between the murder site and Goulston St, the archway was the first convenient opening he was likely to find.

Phil

[Trevor Marriott]

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

But even the cleaning of the hands is not consistent with how it was described. Look at it logically the killer has killed and mutilated Eddowes his hands are covered in blood now if he is going to wipe his hands surely he would do it before taking steps to cut the apron and do it on her clothing at the scene not taking it away. I am sorry I dont buy the theory of the hand or knife wiping.

[Phil H]

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.

I don't follow that logic.

If a "bag" was formed to carry something, you would expect the CORNERS to be held in the hand, gathered up, and thus be furthest from the most likely point of deep staning - THE CENTRE, where the bleeding body parts would rest longest.

If a corner was. particularly heavily stained, I would surmise that it would be while close to the body, perhaps resting on a fresh cut, but unnoticed by "Jack" in the darkness.

Phil

Phil

[Phil H]

But even the cleaning of the hands is not consistent with how it was described. Look at it logically the killer has killed and mutilated Eddowes his hands are covered in blood now if he is going to wipe his hands surely he would do it before taking steps to cut the apron and do it on her clothing at the scene not taking it away. I am sorry I dont buy the theory of the hand or knife wiping.

We don't know what he did, but he took the cloth.

We don't know that he was acting very logically or under what time pressures he was working.

But please feel free to disagree Trevor. After all I disagree with almost all (if not all) your theories.

Phil

[Trevor Marriott]

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.

Rubbish

[Ben]

Hi Phil,

If the killer plonked the organs into the corner of the apron and then hastily wrapped the remainder around them, bandage-style, you'd expect that corner to be the most saturated, with the outer layers remaining dryer, thus protecting his coat lining from any fluids.

All the best,
Ben

P.S. No, it isn't "rubbish", Trevor.

[Malcolm X]

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

i'm afraid that i'm into theories only, but nowadays i stick to a theory that's far more realistic, than the ones that i used to have years ago, i usually leave others to correct my faults, because i do get my facts wrong.. even so, my theory is definitely not stupid, because stupidity is :- Royal Conspiracy/ FM/ SICKERT/ LEWIS CAROLL

but i've got a very stong imagination and i'm quite good at detecting things, so i think that you and i can definitely work together.

lets open a thread maybe tomorrow about this MJK Copycat thing, because i need to refresh myself over this murder and maybe we can bounce some good ideas off each other, because i'm definitely open to new ideas.

this thread is getting tired anyway, just like it did all those years ago.

[Phil H]

I think, Malcolm, that your and my approaches are simply too far apart. I'll just keep my distance from your posts in future.

Feel free to open a thread, of course, but whether I'll post there I have no idea.

Phil

[Trevor Marriott]

But even the cleaning of the hands is not consistent with how it was described. Look at it logically the killer has killed and mutilated Eddowes his hands are covered in blood now if he is going to wipe his hands surely he would do it before taking steps to cut the apron and do it on her clothing at the scene not taking it away. I am sorry I dont buy the theory of the hand or knife wiping.

We don't know what he did, but he took the cloth.

We don't know that he was acting very logically or under what time pressures he was working.

But please feel free to disagree Trevor. After all I disagree with almost all (if not all) your theories.

Phil

Phil
It has been obvious that reserachers have argued over the apron issue for some time now. Those arguments have been based on what has been written. In order for those to be advanced to the point of proving or disproving either or both I with the help of the medical experts set up the tests.

These tests and the photographic results showed a piece of white cloth which bloodied hands had been wiped on. The test also involved the placing of a uterus which had been removed straight from a living donor, this was also placed in a white cloth and the results photographed. Knife wiping on a white cloth was also a further test and the results of that photographed.

Now all the photograhic results clearly do not match the decsription of the apron piece found in Goulston St. Now with these tests you cannot get much closer to re creating the scenario as is suggested so I can only go with these. I cannot see why people are looking to reject the results.

This whole thread is just going round and round and is going nowhere. Clearly for whatever reason some are so blinkered that they will not accept new aspects of the case and cling desparately to the old issues,

[Malcolm X]

But even the cleaning of the hands is not consistent with how it was described. Look at it logically the killer has killed and mutilated Eddowes his hands are covered in blood now if he is going to wipe his hands surely he would do it before taking steps to cut the apron and do it on her clothing at the scene not taking it away. I am sorry I dont buy the theory of the hand or knife wiping.

We don't know what he did, but he took the cloth.

We don't know that he was acting very logically or under what time pressures he was working.

But please feel free to disagree Trevor. After all I disagree with almost all (if not all) your theories.

Phil

ha ha

he cleaned his hands/ knife after he had finished.... does this make sense, on the apron piece

he put...... oh for God's sake

[John Bennett]

Hi Phil,

If the killer plonked the organs into the corner of the apron and then hastily wrapped the remainder around them, bandage-style, you'd expect that corner to be the most saturated, with the outer layers remaining dryer, thus protecting his coat lining from any fluids.

All the best,
Ben

P.S. No, it isn't "rubbish", Trevor.

I think the discrepancies in the various descriptions of the stains make it difficult (for me at least) to determine what may have caused them.

But Ben's hypothesis is not 'rubbish', Trevor. It is quite plausible.

Dammit, why didn't they photograph/sketch the damn thing!!!?

JB

[mklhawley]

Phil
It has been obvious that reserachers have argued over the apron issue for some time now. Those arguments have been based on what has been written. In order for those to be advanced to the point of proving or disproving either or both I with the help of the medical experts set up the tests.

These tests and the photographic results showed a piece of white cloth which bloodied hands had been wiped on. The test also involved the placing of a uterus which had been removed straight from a living donor, this was also placed in a white cloth and the results photographed. Knife wiping on a white cloth was also a further test and the results of that photographed.

Now all the photograhic results clearly do not match the decsription of the apron piece found in Goulston St. Now with these tests you cannot get much closer to re creating the scenario as is suggested so I can only go with these. I cannot see why people are looking to reject the results.

This whole thread is just going round and round and is going nowhere. Clearly for whatever reason some are so blinkered that they will not accept new aspects of the case and cling desparately to the old issues,

Spot on.

[Malcolm X]

I think, Malcolm, that your and my approaches are simply too far apart. I'll just keep my distance from your posts in future.

Feel free to open a thread, of course, but whether I'll post there I have no idea.

Phil

if i do, you probably will