The Apron Again

[Trevor Marriott]

Rob

Have you lost the plot completley

The killer left with most of the womb, and one kidney... quite possibly because he was a cannibal. It seems to me likely that he carried the organs in the apron. Then when he was a safe distance away, he stopped at Goulston Street to wipe the blood off of the organs before putting them in his pocket, and discarding the rag.

I hope you dont take offence but i have read and heard some twatty statements on here but that beats them all

For starters I think you are presuming a bit too much that the killer was logical. Second, I believe that after committing this type of crime, the killer's main instinct would be to get to someplace where he felt safe, ie. home. If the killer actually lived in Whitechapel )or the general area of the murders), it would truly be illogical to do what you suggest... ie to walk west into the City of London. He would be walking away from his home base, and would have to wander the streets. You are also presuming that the killer would have been stopped. Well, he obviously got away from the scene before the Police arrived there, so he had several minutes on them. I think it would have been pretty easy to dissolve into anonymity in the backstreets of Spitalfields, especially as he obviously knew the area. The further he got away from Mitre Square, the likelihood of being stopped by the police would diminish.

[lynn cates]

Iago

Hello Trevor.

"If he had wanted to dispose of it and write something why go all the way to Goulston Street?"

Well, the simple answer is to implicate someone there. Think Iago in "Othello."

Cheers.
LC

[Abby Normal]

This question is asked quite often...why did he take it at all? To clean his hands and knife. But why not drop it sooner as carrying around a bloody apron piece is a ticket to the gallows? No logical answer. And in turn, this leads to a hunt for far fetched theories about stray dogs and corrupt constables. However, the solution, and the ONLY solution backed by hard evidence, is staring you right in the face...or right in the shoulder, as the case may be. That is, of course, the graffiti. Accepting that the graffiti was written by the killer, as most of the police did, answers all of these nagging questions.

If Jack didn't write the graffiti, then it makes little sense why he took the apron at all, let alone carried it as far as he did. This mystery is compounded even further by the fact that he happened to discard the apron under the only reported piece of graffiti on the street.

I'm not picking on Trevor here, just illustrating that only those who have decided, for whatever reason, that Jack wouldn't have left graffiti, are the ones left with these nagging questions and contradictions to answer.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Well put Tom-agree completely.

And for those who say-why didn't he just write something on the wall by Eddowes?

Because he did not know he was going to be bothered by a bunch of Jews that night and did not have chalk on him. But he did have the victim and her apron and a knife to cut some off.

[lynn cates]

time and distance

Hello Tom. I am very comfortable with the apron-qua-graffito-marker solution.

But I am uncomfortable with the time and distance. Distance? OK, IF you wish to cast a shadow on someone at the building. Time? Can't see that one.

Cheers.
LC

[robhouse]

If Jack didn't write the graffiti, then it makes little sense why he took the apron at all, let alone carried it as far as he did.

The killer left with most of the womb, and one kidney... quite possibly because he was a cannibal. It seems to me likely that he carried the organs in the apron. Then when he was a safe distance away, he stopped at Goulston Street to wipe the blood off of the organs before putting them in his pocket, and discarding the rag.

Why in heavens name would the killer of Stride and Eddowes WANT to walk straight back towards an area where the police were crawling all over the shop following the Stride murder? Thats not logical. To get home he'd be stopped more likely than not.

For starters I think you are presuming a bit too much that the killer was logical. Second, I believe that after committing this type of crime, the killer's main instinct would be to get to someplace where he felt safe, ie. home. If the killer actually lived in Whitechapel )or the general area of the murders), it would truly be illogical to do what you suggest... ie to walk west into the City of London. He would be walking away from his home base, and would have to wander the streets. You are also presuming that the killer would have been stopped. Well, he obviously got away from the scene before the Police arrived there, so he had several minutes on them. I think it would have been pretty easy to dissolve into anonymity in the backstreets of Spitalfields, especially as he obviously knew the area. The further he got away from Mitre Square, the likelihood of being stopped by the police would diminish.

[lynn cates]

reasoning

Hello Neil.

"Obviously our man was logical. His actions show reasoning."

Precisely. (Say, are we agreeing again? heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

illogical

Hello (again) Caz.

''an individual whose mind was so illogical, so irrational and so unaffected by the risks he was taking to satisfy his murderous instincts on the streets that never slept, that he gave us the body of Eddowes to prove men like him really do exist."

My problem is that such an illogical fellow is bound to be caught in double quick time.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

sense

Hello Caz.

"everything makes perfect sense to me as it is"

Indeed? Hmm, I've some real estate deals for you. (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[Trevor Marriott]

This question is asked quite often...why did he take it at all? To clean his hands and knife. But why not drop it sooner as carrying around a bloody apron piece is a ticket to the gallows? No logical answer. And in turn, this leads to a hunt for far fetched theories about stray dogs and corrupt constables. However, the solution, and the ONLY solution backed by hard evidence, is staring you right in the face...or right in the shoulder, as the case may be. That is, of course, the graffiti. Accepting that the graffiti was written by the killer, as most of the police did, answers all of these nagging questions.

If Jack didn't write the graffiti, then it makes little sense why he took the apron at all, let alone carried it as far as he did. This mystery is compounded even further by the fact that he happened to discard the apron under the only reported piece of graffiti on the street.

I'm not picking on Trevor here, just illustrating that only those who have decided, for whatever reason, that Jack wouldn't have left graffiti, are the ones left with these nagging questions and contradictions to answer.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Tom

I think you have to look at the graffiti in the context of the murders does it relate to the murder or any other murder. The answer has to be as it stands clearly no, In no matter which way you look at it or analyse it.

The same argument applies to the graffiti as does the apron piece. If he had wanted to dispose of it and write something why go all the way to Goulston Street.

If the graffiti had read "Kilroy was here" would kilroy have been a prime suspect.

For those who wont understand the kilroy part http://www.kilroywashere.org/001-Pag...oyLegends.html

[Tom_Wescott]

But why would he carry it with him all the way to Goulston Street.

This question is asked quite often...why did he take it at all? To clean his hands and knife. But why not drop it sooner as carrying around a bloody apron piece is a ticket to the gallows? No logical answer. And in turn, this leads to a hunt for far fetched theories about stray dogs and corrupt constables. However, the solution, and the ONLY solution backed by hard evidence, is staring you right in the face...or right in the shoulder, as the case may be. That is, of course, the graffiti. Accepting that the graffiti was written by the killer, as most of the police did, answers all of these nagging questions.

If Jack didn't write the graffiti, then it makes little sense why he took the apron at all, let alone carried it as far as he did. This mystery is compounded even further by the fact that he happened to discard the apron under the only reported piece of graffiti on the street.

I'm not picking on Trevor here, just illustrating that only those who have decided, for whatever reason, that Jack wouldn't have left graffiti, are the ones left with these nagging questions and contradictions to answer.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Trevor Marriott]

Caz

You need to stay calm

Why would he carry it all the way to Goulston St?

Because we know it was found there in the wake of the murder. And the best suspect we have for discarding it anywhere is the same man who ripped Eddowes shortly after she was seen by the police wearing the whole (not) bloody article!

I agree that the killer is the best suspect on the face of it but when you look at all the facts surrounding the suggestion that it was the killer, these facts simply do not stand up to close scrutiny.

You are fully entitled to champion your view and others are full entitled to do the same to theirs. But you should not dismiss others theories outright when there is more to corroborate them than yours .

He didn't know it would be found and connected to his latest murder, but it was a fair bet that it would be, considering the cops were under orders to be extra vigilant and it was right where the residents entered or left the building. As we know for a fact, it was found, and there was enough blood on it to indicate its recent involvement in a violent crime.

This another mute point the apron piece has been described in diffdrent ways now doesnt that say something about all of this. For those like you who subscribe to the killer it was bloodstained to others it was merley spotted with blood. Neither of those suggests the killer wiped the knife with it.

So the killer didn't put a foot wrong if the idea was to suggest a link between the murder and the dwellings and show that the killer had come there from Mitre Square.

A fair bet it would be found so if you were the killer and wanted it to be found why not dispose of it in a more open spot in a major thoroughfare. Or why not even post it with the organs and a letter to the police the following day.

I am not wedded to a 'theory', like some people, but everything makes perfect sense to me as it is, so I don't need to come up with unsupported alternative explanations as to how, when or why the apron ended up where it did, none of which get us any further forward.

Love,

Caz
X

[Trevor Marriott]

So we look solely amongst the mad men Caz?

Makes complete sense to me. Making sense of motive doesnt mean logic should be disgarded.

Obviously our man was logical. His actions show reasoning.

Monty

But that would not apply if the acts which are attributed to him were in fact not his doing

[Monty]

You are not alone Phil, and I know you won't take this personally. But why in heaven's name would anyone expect or WANT to see logic or common sense in the man who did everything he did in Mitre Square, to a penniless, defenceless woman, risking the hangman's rope all the while? I see no logic or common sense whatsoever in that dreadful act, but maybe it's just me.

The irony is that the very lack of logic that sends you haring off in search of some common sense alternative would be entirely in line with an individual whose mind was so illogical, so irrational and so unaffected by the risks he was taking to satisfy his murderous instincts on the streets that never slept, that he gave us the body of Eddowes to prove men like him really do exist.

And what do we do with her? Look the other way and ignore the utter lack of logic in the act itself, while insisting that the killer will be found among logical men?

Really? That's what makes no sense to me.

Love,

Caz
X

So we look solely amongst the mad men Caz?

Makes complete sense to me. Making sense of motive doesnt mean logic should be disgarded.

Obviously our man was logical. His actions show reasoning.

Monty

[caz]

Let us presume, just for the sake of it, that there was just ONE JTR.
Why in heavens name would the killer of Stride and Eddowes WANT to walk straight back towards an area where the police were crawling all over the shop following the Stride murder? Thats not logical. To get home he'd be stopped more likely than not.
Far more logical for him to walk the other way.. into the heart of central London.He KNEW the murder scenes were being crawled over.. and where. He has the intelligence to avoid the police in his killings..why not apply the same common sense when fleeing the scene? Makes no sense.

Now if the killer wasn't Strides killer... we have a 50/50 chance that he did or didnt know of the previous murder. If he DID know of it.. same rules apply. But that depends on from which direction he came FROM to Mitre Square, as to likelyhood of knowing about Stride. Less chance if he came from the City to Mitre Square.

No..I believe the killer of Eddowes would have been out of there quicker than greased lightening..like he killed her. Logically therefore, either he had an accomplice, or Eddowes dropped the rag herself at some time.

Thats my honest opinion, for what it is worth.

best wishes

Phil

You are not alone Phil, and I know you won't take this personally. But why in heaven's name would anyone expect or WANT to see logic or common sense in the man who did everything he did in Mitre Square, to a penniless, defenceless woman, risking the hangman's rope all the while? I see no logic or common sense whatsoever in that dreadful act, but maybe it's just me.

The irony is that the very lack of logic that sends you haring off in search of some common sense alternative would be entirely in line with an individual whose mind was so illogical, so irrational and so unaffected by the risks he was taking to satisfy his murderous instincts on the streets that never slept, that he gave us the body of Eddowes to prove men like him really do exist.

And what do we do with her? Look the other way and ignore the utter lack of logic in the act itself, while insisting that the killer will be found among logical men?

Really? That's what makes no sense to me.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

But why would he carry it with him all the way to Goulston Street.

Serial killers remove some items and take them home as trophies perhaps our killer was a vagrant sleeping out at night and Goulston Street archway was his home.

If the killer discarded it there how did he know it was going to be found and furthermore if it were found how did he know someone would conncet it to the murder. It didnt have organs it in it, it had very little blood on it, and it was screwed up. None of that makes sense with your theory.

Why would he carry it all the way to Goulston St?

Because we know it was found there in the wake of the murder. And the best suspect we have for discarding it anywhere is the same man who ripped Eddowes shortly after she was seen by the police wearing the whole (not) bloody article!

He didn't know it would be found and connected to his latest murder, but it was a fair bet that it would be, considering the cops were under orders to be extra vigilant and it was right where the residents entered or left the building. As we know for a fact, it was found, and there was enough blood on it to indicate its recent involvement in a violent crime. So the killer didn't put a foot wrong if the idea was to suggest a link between the murder and the dwellings and show that the killer had come there from Mitre Square.

I am not wedded to a 'theory', like some people, but everything makes perfect sense to me as it is, so I don't need to come up with unsupported alternative explanations as to how, when or why the apron ended up where it did, none of which get us any further forward.

Love,

Caz
X