Kates Cuts

[JeffHamm]

"But if he was able to get that far away from the area where the crime was committed, and wants to return to the streets and is willing to spend 20 minutes in public with the apron on him, then heading back towards the high risk area seems improbable to me. Rather, once he's gotten away from the danger zone, heading to some other distant location from his bolt hole (20 minute walk), and leaving his message with the apron, would seem more probable to me."


can you clarify and or elaborate on this point some more-im a bit confused as to your meaning.

Sure. Ok, we have roughly an hour from the crime to the point the apron is found. And, I'm suggesting something in the vicinity of 15 minutes of JtR being in his bolt hole (washing up, changing clothes, putting his trophies away, etc). So there's 45 minutes left for hiim to "get there and back again". It takes 5 minutes to get to Goulston Street. To keep it simple, if he heads to Goulston Street first (5 minutes), he now has to get to his bolt hole and back to Goulston street within the remaining 40 minutes, so after he gets home, he's free but he now spends as much as 20 minutes in the street with the apron, and heads back towards the crime scene, going from safe to risky locations. If he headed away from Goulston street, he can only travel for 20 minutes to get home, as he needs 25 minutes to head back to Mitre Square area and then beyond to Goulston. (No, I don't mean he actually goes to Mitre Square, he would avoid that, but in that direction).

Again, as a really rough illustration of what I mean, Let's just go with he's got 45 minutes to travel to his bolt hole and back, starting from Mitre Square, and we'll split that into his "going home" and "coming back" trip (so 22.5 minutes each way). The actual shape would be a bit more of an oval, but this is just a rough illustration. So, at an average walking speed (3.1 mph), he can get a shad over a mile away in 22.5 minutes. As in, anywhere in side the red circle (roughly drawn). The Green circle is centred on Mitre Square and to Goulston Street.

Now, once he's gotten that far away, if he wants to get rid of the apron and leave a message, heading back to Goulston Street is to head back towards a high risk area (toward the Green Circle) while carrying evidence (the apron). And to drop it off in Goulston Street, he has to be willing to be carrying that apron for another 22.5 minutes (roughly). If he were somewhere on the circle, and wanted to dump the apron, and was willing to walk for 22.5 minutes with it, then heading in almost any direction except back into the heart of where the police will be is far more probable. Think of risk like a hill, Mitre Square will be a high risk place for him, and that risk will decrease with distance - he's probably going to head "down hill". It levels out at some distance of course, but hopefully that makes a bit of sense.

Now, if his bolt hole is in the area, then he could have gotten there quickly, and also made a dash back out to get rid of the apron. If he is right in the high risk zone, he's not going to want to spend a lot of time carrying the apron knowing the police will be out searching people. That's why I think, if he dropped it after being at home, there's a good chance he lives very close to Goulston Street. Not necessarily in the Green circle, that's mostly to illustrate the idea that heading back towards that centre location is to go "uphill" in terms of risk after having successfully gotten away from there.

- Jeff

[Abby Normal]

That's true, there is a definable maximum distance (within 30 minutes walking distance), though I think there are a few valid ways to reduce that. Such as, presumably he goes home not only to drop off the organs, but he has to grab chalk, probably spend some time washing up better, and change clothes, etc. If we allow for 15 minutes spent in his bolt hole (I just pulled that number out of a hat as something that seems reasonable without being overly reductive), then we have 45 minutes left for travel time. From Mitre Square to the graffiti is about a 5 minute walk (in a straight line rather than along streets, so that will be a bit of an underestimation but good enough for present purposes, so he could get apporximately 4x that distance away from Mitre Square, which is pretty far a field (one could get a bit more sophisticated, and start working out distances that allow for travel from Mitre Square to X then to Goulston street, etc, but we don't need to get too far down those rabbit holes, we could just place a circle centred on Mitre Square with a radisus 4x the distance from Mitre Square to Goulston Street as a very crude estimate.

But if he was able to get that far away from the area where the crime was committed, and wants to return to the streets and is willing to spend 20 minutes in public with the apron on him, then heading back towards the high risk area seems improbable to me. Rather, once he's gotten away from the danger zone, heading to some other distant location from his bolt hole (20 minute walk), and leaving his message with the apron, would seem more probable to me. That's why, to me, I think if he's got a bolt hole, then it's very close to Goulston Street. This is all very hypothetical, and there's no way to prove it nor do I expect anyone to stop considering alternatives,. While I'm presenting what I think is reasonable inferences, I'm not convinced I'm correct here. I agree, for example, that JtR may very well be of the sort that thinks heading back into the high risk area is no big deal, particularly if he was disturbed in his thinking, such as a Kosminski might be. His risk assessment thinking might very well be disturbed, and his choice of crime locations make that a very distinct possibility.



I agree. It's Long's testimony that he's quite sure it wasn't there an hour earlier that makes me reluctant to dismiss the notion that JtR fled home and then returned. It's the possibility he didn't recognize the apron for what it was, and mistook it for just random rubbish, that prevents me from dismissing the possibility he's mistaken, but that's why I'm suggesting it's a point where making too firm a conclusion either way is starting to get a bit iffy.


There used to be some threads on graffiti and its frequency, and quite a few posters of repute did argue that graffiti was common. I can't say whether those views were well founded as I don't know upon what sort of evidence it was based, but I recall it was more than conjecture. However, that being said, I do admit I myself can't provide any support for that, so I certainly can't expect anyone to just take my word for it.


True, but there was a fair bit of anti-Jewish sentiment at the time, particularly after the Pizer thing. There are differing reports on how recent the writing was thought to be by various police officers, so it's a bit hard for us at this point to really be sure of how recent it was written. Again, though, I'm not dismissing the possibility it was by JtR for much the same reasons as you mention above. I just also think there's a good case to be made that it might have been unrelated, so the only real thing I have a different point of view on is the "chance being unrelated = nil" part, but that's not a big deal.



The last bit implies JtR decided to write a message while at the crime scene, which is unknowable. He might have, he might not have. If he wrote it, he obviously made the decision to at some point. The cutting of the apron, and the descriptions of the stains on it appearing to reflect that something (hand or knife) was wiped on it, does seem to indicate that's what it was used for, and really, that's an entirely plausible reason. If he's fleeing because PC Harvey's patrol of Church Passage, then bolting and getting out of there will be his first priority. He later wipes and cleans up, and by that time, he could about 5 minutes away, and drops it. It's not that he spent 5 minutes wiping up, rather, he fled for a few minutes, cleans up, drops it, and continues (this is the "didn't go home first" idea). If he did go home first, then again, flee for a few minutes, clean up a bit on the way (since he seems to have wiped something on it), then at some point later, go out and get rid of the soiled material. I suppose he could have used it to wrap up the organs in that case, wiped up after taking them out, etc.

Anyway, there are a lot of scenerios that could happen once one starts getting too detailed in filling in the gaps between the bits of evidence. As a result, I think "good stories" can be built around either road in the divergence, meaning the divergence between "dropped during the escape" vs "dropped after making it home first". I suspect the latter makes the graffiti more probable by JtR (but not conclusively so) and the former makes it less likely (but also not conclusively so), as they are different issues.

- Jeff

hi jeff again good and well thought out post. I think the apron whether or not you believe its connected to the GSG or not is one of the only clues we have o the ripper-ie. where he lived. id like to explore this a bit.

But if he was able to get that far away from the area where the crime was committed, and wants to return to the streets and is willing to spend 20 minutes in public with the apron on him, then heading back towards the high risk area seems improbable to me. Rather, once he's gotten away from the danger zone, heading to some other distant location from his bolt hole (20 minute walk), and leaving his message with the apron, would seem more probable to me.

can you clarify and or elaborate on this point some more-im a bit confused as to your meaning.

[jmenges]

If id had said that about Herlock Sholmes during our long drawn out debates on the Chapman thread, i surely would have been banned ....... oh wait i was. For a lot less i might add.

cue, jmenges ?

I just saw this...

If you feel that a post is in need of moderator attention REPORT THE POST.
Simply typing the name of a mod in a sarcastic manner does not bring the post to my attention.
Implying that I should be some all-seeing eye and I’m therefore a hypocrite, will get you booted from the boards.


JM

[Michael W Richards]

OK...the apron section isn't the real reason I started this thread, its the cuts made on Kate, to her face, and her body. The cuts to her body are reminiscent of earlier murders, however the facial cuts are not. It has never been claimed that Kates killer must have sought her kidney by virtue of the manner in which he cuts her, however it was stated that Annies killer did cut according to his final objective. It has never been said that Kate had no superfluous cuts...but it was said in Annies case "there were no meaningless cuts". It was said that Kates killer showed some anatomical knowledge, Annies murder prompted the police to seek out suspects in the medically trained field. Annies throat and body were cut, Kates throat, body, clothing and face was cut. Annies killer may have had 15 minutes with the victim after the throat cut, Kates may have had as little as 3-5 minutes. There was blood on the front of Annie and her clothing, there was not on the front Kates clothing....despite the fact she had her intestines removed.

These murders seem very similar, yet I don't sense the same commitment to objective based on the additional cutting.

[Trevor Marriott]

No it hasn't. The only thing that's been proven is that your definition of "reasonable doubt" is at odds with any sensible application of that term.

Its not about definition, its about the facts and the evidence which go to make up reasonable doubt

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

He signed what Crawford and/or his clerk managed to summarise, which can only ever be a précis of what was actually transpired. Luckily, we can fill in the blanks by - carefully - scrutinising what the newspaper reporters recorded, practised as they were, and far more so than the court officials, in shorthand. It is in this way we build up a picture as to what was most likely said.

Thats not how it works, when depositions are recorded at court, on completion the witness is asked to read and sign it as being correct, Stop using weak excuses to try to negate that statement of Brown.

You build up a picture as to how you want it to be, by inferring that the court deposition is wrong, and that the newspaper reports are right ! Because as I keep stating his deposition weakens the argument that she was wearing an apron, and that apron was still on the body, which we know it wast because had it have been it would have been listed amongst her clothing and not amongst her possessions. Is that so difficult to accept ?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sam Flynn]

it has now not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that at the time of her murder she was in fact wearing an apron.

No it hasn't. The only thing that's been proven is that your definition of "reasonable doubt" is at odds with any sensible application of that term.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,

Basically, what I'm saying, is that on one level I agree with you, that we cannot forget that eyewitness testimony and statements can be quite wrong. That's always something people need to keep in mind. So, in that respect, all testimony is open to concerns regarding it's safety. Unlike a current investigation, though, we're stuck with what we have and no new testimony can be obtained, and we have no ability to ask questions of those witnesses to get clarification.

Where we differ, however, is that while I agree one could argue "all of the evidence is unsafe", if one does that then one has to stop there. We can't then go on to introduce a new interpretation based upon a speculative notion of how that evidence is unsafe. We can't say "what they said is wrong, and I know they should have said this other thing" and then put that forth as evidence. With regards to the apron, if you think the police and other witnesses who state she was wearing an apron is unsafe to rely upon, then all evidence of anything is unsafe. That means you have nothing upon which to build a theory because all the evidence gets thrown away, and we don't get to say "it really was this way" because that opens the door for us to just invent evidence, and that is even more unsafe.

Given we're stuck with the statements we have, the best we can do is start with the assumption that while the statements will not be perfectly accurate, they will not be way off base. If we have multiple people, for example, all reporting that Eddowes was wearing an apron, and we have the police confirming that they matched the piece found on Goulston Street with a cut apron found at the crime scene, and we have multiple witnesses stating the apron found at the crime scene looks like the one they saw her wearing, then that has to be treated as a fact; Eddowes was wearing the apron when she was murdered, at some point it was cut, and the missing piece ends up in Goulston Street and was found about an hour later. Arguing that all the witnesses are wrong in stating she was wearing an apron, or arguing that the one found was not the one she was wearing, means that the one was found was a second apron for which we have absolutely no documented evidence independent of the evidence in dispute. This 2nd apron is infinitely more unsafe than accepting the corroboration of multiple witnesses in describing what is as close to a fact as we can ever get in a historical murder case.

Now, when we come to suggesting how the cut piece got to Goulston, when was it put there, what was it used for, and so forth, there we are talking about theory, which can be debated, and there outside the box thinking can be very useful. But when it comes to "outside the box thinking" with regards to the basic facts, there has to be an awful lot of compelling reasons that directly contradict the statements and not just the standard "sometimes witnesses get it wrong" concern, which always exits. In a current investigation, those concerns can be addressed by re-interview, double checking details, and so forth. In an historical context, those options are out. I get that your experience with actual criminal investigations must create frustrations because of the inadequacy of the evidence set we have, but that's what we have to work with. If you think what we have is not good enough to work with, then there's no point in trying to interpret any of it. My view is that we need to try and bring the fuzzy bits into focus, and we do that by chipping, very cautiously, at the existing evidence that doesn't fit together as it is given to us.

Anyway, I doubt I'll change your mind, and you'll continue to view my statements and arguments as nothing more than touting some established view. The problem is, sometimes the evidence is so clear that it was easy to establish what it meant right away. Simple things, like the wearing of the apron, the taking of organs, victims killed on the spot they were found, are established. Others, like exactly which victims should be considered part of the series, that's more open to debate, and certainly not something I've got any firm conclusions on (so when I do get into discussions, such as about Stride, I'll tend to pick one side and state which assumption I've adopted for the time being, but that's how conversations work, but I also try and make it clear I'm not convinced I've picked the right side).

- Jeff

Finally
The evidence is there to be challenged and not readily accepted as being correct. Now I accept we cannot cross examine witnesses and that should have been done at the time by both the police and at the inquest, because there were conflicts, which we are now left with. I feel that I have given enough examples of not only conflicts but flaws in the testimony, and that it has now not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that at the time of her murder she was in fact wearing an apron.

If she was not wearing an apron then the killer could not have cut or torn a piece from it and dropped it off in Gouston Street, and that kicks a big hole in the old accepted theory. a big hole that clearly you and others would not wish for.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[JeffHamm]

Hi Trevor,

Basically, what I'm saying, is that on one level I agree with you, that we cannot forget that eyewitness testimony and statements can be quite wrong. That's always something people need to keep in mind. So, in that respect, all testimony is open to concerns regarding it's safety. Unlike a current investigation, though, we're stuck with what we have and no new testimony can be obtained, and we have no ability to ask questions of those witnesses to get clarification.

Where we differ, however, is that while I agree one could argue "all of the evidence is unsafe", if one does that then one has to stop there. We can't then go on to introduce a new interpretation based upon a speculative notion of how that evidence is unsafe. We can't say "what they said is wrong, and I know they should have said this other thing" and then put that forth as evidence. With regards to the apron, if you think the police and other witnesses who state she was wearing an apron is unsafe to rely upon, then all evidence of anything is unsafe. That means you have nothing upon which to build a theory because all the evidence gets thrown away, and we don't get to say "it really was this way" because that opens the door for us to just invent evidence, and that is even more unsafe.

Given we're stuck with the statements we have, the best we can do is start with the assumption that while the statements will not be perfectly accurate, they will not be way off base. If we have multiple people, for example, all reporting that Eddowes was wearing an apron, and we have the police confirming that they matched the piece found on Goulston Street with a cut apron found at the crime scene, and we have multiple witnesses stating the apron found at the crime scene looks like the one they saw her wearing, then that has to be treated as a fact; Eddowes was wearing the apron when she was murdered, at some point it was cut, and the missing piece ends up in Goulston Street and was found about an hour later. Arguing that all the witnesses are wrong in stating she was wearing an apron, or arguing that the one found was not the one she was wearing, means that the one was found was a second apron for which we have absolutely no documented evidence independent of the evidence in dispute. This 2nd apron is infinitely more unsafe than accepting the corroboration of multiple witnesses in describing what is as close to a fact as we can ever get in a historical murder case.

Now, when we come to suggesting how the cut piece got to Goulston, when was it put there, what was it used for, and so forth, there we are talking about theory, which can be debated, and there outside the box thinking can be very useful. But when it comes to "outside the box thinking" with regards to the basic facts, there has to be an awful lot of compelling reasons that directly contradict the statements and not just the standard "sometimes witnesses get it wrong" concern, which always exits. In a current investigation, those concerns can be addressed by re-interview, double checking details, and so forth. In an historical context, those options are out. I get that your experience with actual criminal investigations must create frustrations because of the inadequacy of the evidence set we have, but that's what we have to work with. If you think what we have is not good enough to work with, then there's no point in trying to interpret any of it. My view is that we need to try and bring the fuzzy bits into focus, and we do that by chipping, very cautiously, at the existing evidence that doesn't fit together as it is given to us.

Anyway, I doubt I'll change your mind, and you'll continue to view my statements and arguments as nothing more than touting some established view. The problem is, sometimes the evidence is so clear that it was easy to establish what it meant right away. Simple things, like the wearing of the apron, the taking of organs, victims killed on the spot they were found, are established. Others, like exactly which victims should be considered part of the series, that's more open to debate, and certainly not something I've got any firm conclusions on (so when I do get into discussions, such as about Stride, I'll tend to pick one side and state which assumption I've adopted for the time being, but that's how conversations work, but I also try and make it clear I'm not convinced I've picked the right side).

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

There is no conspiracy from my part I can assure you of that.

Let me give you an example of safe and unsafe

Dr Browns original signed inquest testimony is safe to rely on, there can be no argument against it.
The Telegraph Newspaper report is unsafe to rely on because we dont know if it was written by a reporter who was there or written by a third party and it conflict with Dr Brown description of the apron.

Now to accept Dr Browns inquest testimony negates the Telegraph account, and also weakens the suggestion that she was wearing an apron. So of course you and others want to believe the Telegraph account.

No, accepting Dr. Browns inquest testimony does not weaken the arguement she was wearing an apron. It weakens the argument that the apron was still tied to the body after she was murdered. What it does not do is weaken the argument that she was wearing an apron at the time she was murdered. You are misinterpreting the evidence that suggests the apron might have been cut such that it was no longer tied to her as if it means she was never wearing it in the first place. That is an invalid inference.

I am not going to go over again the flaws with the later identification of the apron by police officers who "recalled" she was wearing an apron but they dont give any indication as to why they remembered, and for the record none of them were involved with the apron piece or the piece from the mortuary. The officer in court could have been shown any old piece of white apron and he would still have said it was from Eddowes.

"....The officer in court could have been shown any old piece of white apron and he would still have said it was from Eddowes."

Could have ... really? Ok, my counter-argument, which is of equal value to what you just presented is, "No, they wouldn't have'.

All I will say is that you clearly have no concept of how to asses and evaluate witness testimony, whether it be on oath or in statement form, perhaps less talking about me in your posts and more about the flaws which I have identified might be more beneficial to your cause. But as it stands you like others simply ignore the obvious and retreat back to the old accepted beliefs, believing that all that was said back then must be the truth when clearly as has been shown to you that is not the case

See, you're tendency to resort to adhomin attacks is what results in similar responses. I recognize, though you seem to ignore it when I do, that witness testimony is sketchy. I actually agree with you that, if we had the luxury of being able to interview the witnesses again that there are lots of points that would need to be explored, and clarified, and so forth. But we can't do that as none of them are talking anymore.

The difference is, while accepting that witness testimony is often fraught with problems related to the ambiguity of language, mis-recollections, over/under confidence, etc, I don't think it's valid to just throw it all away and fill it in with completely unsubstantiated conjecture at each and every turning point. Some things are clear, like the fact that Eddowes was wearing an apron on the night she was murdered, and that a piece of it was later found in Goulston Street with blood and fecal matter on it. This isn't a theoretical belief that is being held on to, it's just summarizing what the evidence is.

How and when it got there is unclear, and there are various theories about that. While I think the "old established belief" is that he dropped it while fleeing the scene, that is challenged by the alternative view that JtR didn't drop it until an hour later. And if you've followed anything I've posted, you will see that your inference that I refuse to consider other possibilities is also unfounded. You have been arguing for changing the evidence, not changing theory.

The conflicts in the testimony have been highlighted but again you choose to ignore them

Because they are not conflicts, we do not have some people saying "she was definately not wearing an apron" and other saying "she was definately wearing an apron", we only have people saying she was wearing an apron, nobody states she wasn't wearing one, though some failed to mention one (Lawende et al, if they saw Eddowes, did not mention it, but then he didn't see her front on as the man she was with was between them, - and of course, it might not have been Eddowes as well), and the booking officer you mentioned, who simply didn't mention it - he didn't say she was not wearing one. And you of all people should recognize the difference that makes with regards to witness testimony.

The evidence to show she was wearing an apron is unsafe, and the evidence to show she was not wearing one at the time of her murder is much greater, and that is a fact.

There's an old joke that goes, "How many legs would a dog have if you called it's tail a leg?", and the answer being "Four, calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one". The evidence she was wearing an apron is not unsafe, it comes from multiple independent sources. While yes, I recognize that witness testimony can be blurry and erroneous, we have nothing evidential to suggest that point is incorrect, and given that multiple witnesses all confirm she was wearing an apron, if that is not sufficient to establish that as safe, then you might as well just say "all of the evidence is unsafe", and stop there. Because anything offered that differs from those witnesses is even more unsafe, because it will be based upon nothing at all. Either we draw inferences based upon the information we have, cautious though we have to be in them, or we should just draw no inferences at all.

and now I have wasted enough time yet again on this topic. which seems to keep resurfacing 3-4 times each year.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

hi jeff
good post. i doubt he would have chalk on him so he would have to go to his bolt hole to get some. i beleive it was about an hour between when eddowes was killed and the gsg discovered so my guess would be he couldnt live more than a half hours walk radius from the vicinty of mitre square/ goulston street.

That's true, there is a definable maximum distance (within 30 minutes walking distance), though I think there are a few valid ways to reduce that. Such as, presumably he goes home not only to drop off the organs, but he has to grab chalk, probably spend some time washing up better, and change clothes, etc. If we allow for 15 minutes spent in his bolt hole (I just pulled that number out of a hat as something that seems reasonable without being overly reductive), then we have 45 minutes left for travel time. From Mitre Square to the graffiti is about a 5 minute walk (in a straight line rather than along streets, so that will be a bit of an underestimation but good enough for present purposes, so he could get apporximately 4x that distance away from Mitre Square, which is pretty far a field (one could get a bit more sophisticated, and start working out distances that allow for travel from Mitre Square to X then to Goulston street, etc, but we don't need to get too far down those rabbit holes, we could just place a circle centred on Mitre Square with a radisus 4x the distance from Mitre Square to Goulston Street as a very crude estimate.

But if he was able to get that far away from the area where the crime was committed, and wants to return to the streets and is willing to spend 20 minutes in public with the apron on him, then heading back towards the high risk area seems improbable to me. Rather, once he's gotten away from the danger zone, heading to some other distant location from his bolt hole (20 minute walk), and leaving his message with the apron, would seem more probable to me. That's why, to me, I think if he's got a bolt hole, then it's very close to Goulston Street. This is all very hypothetical, and there's no way to prove it nor do I expect anyone to stop considering alternatives,. While I'm presenting what I think is reasonable inferences, I'm not convinced I'm correct here. I agree, for example, that JtR may very well be of the sort that thinks heading back into the high risk area is no big deal, particularly if he was disturbed in his thinking, such as a Kosminski might be. His risk assessment thinking might very well be disturbed, and his choice of crime locations make that a very distinct possibility.

he didnt go straight to goulston from mitre because long was adament it wasnt there the first time around. the police belived the gsg was written by the killer. i dont like to start discounting witnesses and police for no good reason.

I agree. It's Long's testimony that he's quite sure it wasn't there an hour earlier that makes me reluctant to dismiss the notion that JtR fled home and then returned. It's the possibility he didn't recognize the apron for what it was, and mistook it for just random rubbish, that prevents me from dismissing the possibility he's mistaken, but that's why I'm suggesting it's a point where making too firm a conclusion either way is starting to get a bit iffy.

the chances that the graffitti and the apron are unrelated is almost nil in my mind:
no mention of otjer graffiti in the area

There used to be some threads on graffiti and its frequency, and quite a few posters of repute did argue that graffiti was common. I can't say whether those views were well founded as I don't know upon what sort of evidence it was based, but I recall it was more than conjecture. However, that being said, I do admit I myself can't provide any support for that, so I certainly can't expect anyone to just take my word for it.

the graffiti mentions jews in a disparaging way on a night the ripper was seen by and interupted by several that night. its also deposited in a jewish reidence. obvious implication being hes trying to throw blame on the jews.
and as the residence was mostly inhabited by jews and the grafitti written in plain sight so if it had been there for any length of time it would have been wiped clean. that graffiti never saw the light of day.
the police thought it was written by the ripper.

True, but there was a fair bit of anti-Jewish sentiment at the time, particularly after the Pizer thing. There are differing reports on how recent the writing was thought to be by various police officers, so it's a bit hard for us at this point to really be sure of how recent it was written. Again, though, I'm not dismissing the possibility it was by JtR for much the same reasons as you mention above. I just also think there's a good case to be made that it might have been unrelated, so the only real thing I have a different point of view on is the "chance being unrelated = nil" part, but that's not a big deal.

long said it wasnt there the first time around. he was adament he would have seen it. no reason to discount him at all. so more than likely the ripper didnt cut the apron to wipe his hands as he bolted and dropped it there as he fled home.
any way it would be much quicker and less risky to just wipe his hands on her clothing right before he left. and if he did cut it to wipe his hands as he was fleeing no reason to hold onto as far as goulston street. the cutting the apron to wipe his hands dosnt really make much sense anyway you look at it.

everything points to it was intentionally cut away and used to sign the grafitti. i think the police got that part right.

The last bit implies JtR decided to write a message while at the crime scene, which is unknowable. He might have, he might not have. If he wrote it, he obviously made the decision to at some point. The cutting of the apron, and the descriptions of the stains on it appearing to reflect that something (hand or knife) was wiped on it, does seem to indicate that's what it was used for, and really, that's an entirely plausible reason. If he's fleeing because PC Harvey's patrol of Church Passage, then bolting and getting out of there will be his first priority. He later wipes and cleans up, and by that time, he could about 5 minutes away, and drops it. It's not that he spent 5 minutes wiping up, rather, he fled for a few minutes, cleans up, drops it, and continues (this is the "didn't go home first" idea). If he did go home first, then again, flee for a few minutes, clean up a bit on the way (since he seems to have wiped something on it), then at some point later, go out and get rid of the soiled material. I suppose he could have used it to wrap up the organs in that case, wiped up after taking them out, etc.

Anyway, there are a lot of scenerios that could happen once one starts getting too detailed in filling in the gaps between the bits of evidence. As a result, I think "good stories" can be built around either road in the divergence, meaning the divergence between "dropped during the escape" vs "dropped after making it home first". I suspect the latter makes the graffiti more probable by JtR (but not conclusively so) and the former makes it less likely (but also not conclusively so), as they are different issues.

- Jeff

[Sam Flynn]

Dr Browns original signed inquest testimony is safe to rely on, there can be no argument against it.

He signed what Crawford and/or his clerk managed to summarise, which can only ever be a précis of what was actually transpired. Luckily, we can fill in the blanks by - carefully - scrutinising what the newspaper reporters recorded, practised as they were, and far more so than the court officials, in shorthand. It is in this way we build up a picture as to what was most likely said.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby Normal,

I don't discount the possibility the graffiti was written by JtR, but graffiti was apparently not uncommon, nor was anti-antisemitism. The apron was found in the stairwell of a building primarily tenanted by Jews, as well, so there's a reasonable probability it could have been completely unrelated to the murders. Basically, the chance of them being unrelated is high enough that both options have to be considered. Certainly, the police at the time would have seen it as a potential clue because there was also good reason to believe that JtR did write it. Had they photographed it, preserving the handwriting, that might have been something they could use as a lead.

Obviously, if it's not JtR, there's nothing but coincidence that the apron was found there and no particular meaning or intention is required other than discarding of evidence.

If, on the other hand, he did write it, it possibly does refer to Lawende, Levy, and Harris, or if Stride is a victim of JtR, it could refer to his being interrupted and fleeing that crime to then commit a second, and so forth. Perhaps he dropped the apron to ensure the message was connected to him, or perhaps he dropped the apron and the notion of leaving a message occurred to him just then and he stuck around to do so. Or I suppose he may have had a compulsion to write a message, and dropped the apron to do so and just didn't bother picking it back up as he was done wiping up.

Anyway, all I'm saying is that both the "JtR is and is not the author of the graffiti" arguments are strong enough to consider as reasonable, and neither requires dismissing any of the evidence we have, so both account for things.

Hmmm, that being said, let me speculate a little here. Let's consider the implications of the "JtR went home, cleaned up, came back out and discarded the apron piece and wrote the graffiti" for whatever reason. One thing we are probably safe to assume is that JtR does not want to get caught. So, if he fled to his bolt hole, and then came back out to discard the apron, then he's taking a huge risk by coming back out when the place is likely to have lots of police around. To reduce his risk he is going to want to avoid Mitre Square and head away from where all the activity will be so it seems most likely to me that when he leaves to discard the apron, he would head in a direction that puts more distance between himself and the crime scene and not head back towards the hornets nest. And, he's not going to go all that far, since the longer he's carrying it the greater the risk of getting caught with it. That would suggest his bolt hole would most likely be between Mitre Square and Goulston Street, or somewhere along Goulston Street south of the graffiti maybe? If he lived very near by then he would be aware of how much activity was in the vicinity, and so might also be aware that he had enough time to chalk a message as well.

But, that whole idea all depends upon the apron being deposited after he went home and came back out. If it was deposited as he fled the crime scene, then what we have is an indication of his general direction of travel, suggesting he lives east of Goulston, rather than in the vicinity of it.

- Jeff

hi jeff
good post. i doubt he would have chalk on him so he would have to go to his bolt hole to get some. i beleive it was about an hour between when eddowes was killed and the gsg discovered so my guess would be he couldnt live more than a half hours walk radius from the vicinty of mitre square/ goulston street.

he didnt go straight to goulston from mitre because long was adament it wasnt there the first time around. the police belived the gsg was written by the killer. i dont like to start discounting witnesses and police for no good reason.

the chances that the graffitti and the apron are unrelated is almost nil in my mind:
no mention of otjer graffiti in the area
the graffiti mentions jews in a disparaging way on a night the ripper was seen by and interupted by several that night. its also deposited in a jewish reidence. obvious implication being hes trying to throw blame on the jews.
and as the residence was mostly inhabited by jews and the grafitti written in plain sight so if it had been there for any length of time it would have been wiped clean. that graffiti never saw the light of day.
the police thought it was written by the ripper.

long said it wasnt there the first time around. he was adament he would have seen it. no reason to discount him at all. so more than likely the ripper didnt cut the apron to wipe his hands as he bolted and dropped it there as he fled home.
any way it would be much quicker and less risky to just wipe his hands on her clothing right before he left. and if he did cut it to wipe his hands as he was fleeing no reason to hold onto as far as goulston street. the cutting the apron to wipe his hands dosnt really make much sense anyway you look at it.

everything points to it was intentionally cut away and used to sign the grafitti. i think the police got that part right.

[Trevor Marriott]

Which is tantamount to saying they lied under oath, that they testified they believed it was the apron she was wearing when in fact they could not have believed that according to you. You assume that they couldn't have recognized it, and then decide that your assumption is true, and build upon it. That is the definition of unsafe.

What we have are multiple people all testifying that she was wearing an apron and that the one produced at the inquest was the one she was wearing. They aren't identifying the cut piece, they are identifying the one found at the scene of the crime. The cut piece is connected to that apron by the fact the cut and the seams on it match.



The assumptions you present as flaws boil down to "If we presume they were wrong, then they were wrong", and that doesn't constitute presenting evidence they were wrong. If I were to say "If we presume there were no murders at all, then there were no murders and the whole thing is a press hoax", we could debate that too. But it would be a waste of time.

Your earlier posts were arguing she wasn't even wearing an apron, as in post #53 when you say

"As to the two apron pieces which were matched there is no evidence to show that the two pieces made up a full apron, and therefore adds weight to the suggestion that she wasn't wearing an apron, but simply been in possession of two old pieces of white apron which at some point had come from a full apron."

Clearly, if nothing else, you can see how that suggestion is refuted. She was wearing an apron.

You now seem to be arguing that the apron produced at the inquest wasn't the one she was wearing. So where is that one? Are you going to suggest that JtR was not collecting organs but aprons?



That doesn't give one carte blanche to presume it is entirely false either. We look at what we have and compare it to what was stated, and nothing stated conflicts with the evidence presented.



And you're back to the conspiracy theory approach here again. You need to produce evidence that conflicts with their statements, and not "what if" type assumptions, and we don't have any evidence that conflicts with their statements. Her doss house keeper reports she was wearing an apron that morning, and so do the police who find and release her just before she's murdered. You've been trying to argue she wasn't wearing one as per above, and clearly that's wrong.



Except you haven't disproved anything. And the only goalpost shifts are from you. You resort to calling things "ambiguous" when they disprove your speculations but if something you present as support can be shown to be ambiguous through equally convoluted twists of the English language you refuse to consider it, and you claim some statements are unsafe and others safe despite the circumstances being the same. That's goal post shifting.

The evidence we have access to, and the inability to re-interview witnesses, means proof or disproof is unachievable in one sense, so we have to work with what we have and see where it leads. Suggesting alternative notions for which there is no proof is not a solution.

- Jeff

There is no conspiracy from my part I can assure you of that.

Let me give you an example of safe and unsafe

Dr Browns original signed inquest testimony is safe to rely on, there can be no argument against it.
The Telegraph Newspaper report is unsafe to rely on because we dont know if it was written by a reporter who was there or written by a third party and it conflict with Dr Brown description of the apron.

Now to accept Dr Browns inquest testimony negates the Telegraph account, and also weakens the suggestion that she was wearing an apron. So of course you and others want to believe the Telegraph account.

I am not going to go over again the flaws with the later identification of the apron by police officers who "recalled" she was wearing an apron but they dont give any indication as to why they remembered, and for the record none of them were involved with the apron piece or the piece from the mortuary. The officer in court could have been shown any old piece of white apron and he would still have said it was from Eddowes.

All I will say is that you clearly have no concept of how to asses and evaluate witness testimony, whether it be on oath or in statement form, perhaps less talking about me in your posts and more about the flaws which I have identified might be more beneficial to your cause. But as it stands you like others simply ignore the obvious and retreat back to the old accepted beliefs, believing that all that was said back then must be the truth when clearly as has been shown to you that is not the case

The conflicts in the testimony have been highlighted but again you choose to ignore them

The evidence to show she was wearing an apron is unsafe, and the evidence to show she was not wearing one at the time of her murder is much greater, and that is a fact.

and now I have wasted enough time yet again on this topic. which seems to keep resurfacing 3-4 times each year.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[JeffHamm]

I am not suggesting they deliberately lied on oath I am suggesting that they were probably being over helpful in going with the flow.

Which is tantamount to saying they lied under oath, that they testified they believed it was the apron she was wearing when in fact they could not have believed that according to you. You assume that they couldn't have recognized it, and then decide that your assumption is true, and build upon it. That is the definition of unsafe.

What we have are multiple people all testifying that she was wearing an apron and that the one produced at the inquest was the one she was wearing. They aren't identifying the cut piece, they are identifying the one found at the scene of the crime. The cut piece is connected to that apron by the fact the cut and the seams on it match.

Can you not see the flaws in their testimony which make their statements questionable?

The assumptions you present as flaws boil down to "If we presume they were wrong, then they were wrong", and that doesn't constitute presenting evidence they were wrong. If I were to say "If we presume there were no murders at all, then there were no murders and the whole thing is a press hoax", we could debate that too. But it would be a waste of time.

Your earlier posts were arguing she wasn't even wearing an apron, as in post #53 when you say

"As to the two apron pieces which were matched there is no evidence to show that the two pieces made up a full apron, and therefore adds weight to the suggestion that she wasn't wearing an apron, but simply been in possession of two old pieces of white apron which at some point had come from a full apron."

Clearly, if nothing else, you can see how that suggestion is refuted. She was wearing an apron.

You now seem to be arguing that the apron produced at the inquest wasn't the one she was wearing. So where is that one? Are you going to suggest that JtR was not collecting organs but aprons?

They were never cross examined, and their evidence tested so you cannot rely on it as being totally correct.

That doesn't give one carte blanche to presume it is entirely false either. We look at what we have and compare it to what was stated, and nothing stated conflicts with the evidence presented.

Just because they were police doesn't mean they told the truth.

And you're back to the conspiracy theory approach here again. You need to produce evidence that conflicts with their statements, and not "what if" type assumptions, and we don't have any evidence that conflicts with their statements. Her doss house keeper reports she was wearing an apron that morning, and so do the police who find and release her just before she's murdered. You've been trying to argue she wasn't wearing one as per above, and clearly that's wrong.

The same applies to Dr Brown, which of the reports is correct, the one he signed or the one perhaps mistakenly reported? There has to be an answer. It has to be the signed one and the other you seek to rely on mistakenly reported. You cant keep changing the goalposts to suit, which you seem to think I am doing, and that is certainly not the case. I seek to prove or disprove, and If I can disprove offer up alternative explanations with facts and evidence in support which I have done.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Except you haven't disproved anything. And the only goalpost shifts are from you. You resort to calling things "ambiguous" when they disprove your speculations but if something you present as support can be shown to be ambiguous through equally convoluted twists of the English language you refuse to consider it, and you claim some statements are unsafe and others safe despite the circumstances being the same. That's goal post shifting.

The evidence we have access to, and the inability to re-interview witnesses, means proof or disproof is unachievable in one sense, so we have to work with what we have and see where it leads. Suggesting alternative notions for which there is no proof is not a solution.

- Jeff