The Apron Again

[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]

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

[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]

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

[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.

[Abby Normal]

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.



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.

Hi Rob
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.

He may well have been a cannibal-but why carry the organs in the apron only to wipe them off later and put in his pocket? He could have just done that at the murder scene?

[mariab]

I am very comfortable with the apron-qua-graffito-marker solution. {...} Distance? OK, IF you wish to cast a shadow on someone at the building.

Lynn, I'm sure you know that a relatively prominent IWEC member is documented to have resided in the Wentworth Dwellings.

[robhouse]

Because he would have wanted to get away from the murder site immediately and not waste any time futzing around with wiping down bloody organs at the crime scene. I would have thought that was obvious.

[robhouse]

Rob

Have you lost the plot completley...

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

Yeah why would I take offense to that? Do you care to clarify? It seems fairly straightforward to me.

[Abby Normal]

Because he would have wanted to get away from the murder site immediately and not waste any time futzing around with wiping down bloody organs at the crime scene. I would have thought that was obvious.

But he would have wasted time futzing around cutting off a piece apron at the crime scene only to later put the organs in his pocket and throw away the apron anyway?

[Trevor Marriott]

Yeah why would I take offense to that? Do you care to clarify? It seems fairly straightforward to me.

Abby has already answered it I am going to go back and sit in a darkened room this all to much for this mere mortal to take.

[robhouse]

But he would have wasted time futzing around cutting off a piece apron at the crime scene only to later put the organs in his pocket and throw away the apron anyway?

Yes, that is correct. It is one scenario anyway. The other generally accepted idea is that he used the rag to wipe off his hands and knife, which he also could have done at the crime scene.

[robhouse]

Abby has already answered it I am going to go back and sit in a darkened room this all to much for this mere mortal to take.

What has Abby answered? You believe the apron was used as a maxipad, correct?

[Trevor Marriott]

What has Abby answered? You believe the apron was used as a maxipad, correct?

To be fair Rob that possiibilty is much more plausible than the one you have suggested.

[Monty]

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

No **** Sherlock.

Monty