Kates Cuts

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff
look at the big picture.

The ripper was interrupted/seen/ disturbed by several jews that night. he knew that. we know that. a portion of a victims bloody apron was found under grafitti incriminating jews. He may have come up with the idea he was going to do it at eddowes murder scene or later once he got back to his bolt hole with his goodies wrapped up in it. yes he may have wiped his hands and or the knife on it at some point.
bottom line it was found under the GSG-both obviously the work of the ripper. even the police at the time thought so.

I mean if they weren't both done intentionally, at the same time, by the ripper-what are we left with? what are the chances theyre unrelated?

In my mind the most likely and logical scenario is the ripper was pissed off at being seen by a bunch of jews that night, decided at some point to use her apron for a little payback/ deflection/obsfucation. dosnt have anything to write with so goes back to his bolt hole to grab some chalk, clean up, drop off knife and goodies, and heads back out to drop the apron and write the gsg. On a well known jewish residence.
Its a narrative that makes total sense and fits the evidence-such as Long not seeing it the first time around.

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

[Fiver]

There is no argument that the two pieces matched, but there is no evidence to show that when matched they made up a full apron

Multiple witnesses, mainly police officers, testified at the inquest that Eddowes was wearing an apron, not part of an apron.

[Trevor Marriott]

I am all for challenging some evidence when it reveals something that is not directly contradicted within other known evidence Trevor. The apron section "still attached to the body", on the victim when she is found is certainly not worth disputing. It was noted as such, and there is no reason to imagine anyone was seeing things that were not there. Your beliefs that organs were not taken from the scene is a little more grey, and there is some room to challenge whether the people examining the victims on the street could immediately determine which, if any, organs were missing. In Kellys case it may have been every murkier.

But that statement you rely on is in direct conflict with the other statement from Brown " “My attention was called to the apron it was the corner of the apron with the string attached.”This doesnt say anything about being attached to the body so it had to be the left or right corner, and each cornet would have had a string attcahed. So this statement makes perfect sense.

I do not believe that the organs were "harvested" in the morgues myself, but at least you have some room to dicker on that point. You don't on the apron. It was used to match the Goulston piece, and they were from one apron. The one she was seen still partially wearing in Mitre Square.

There is no argument that the two pieces matched, but there is no evidence to show that when matched they made up a full apron

How can you partially wear and apron,? its either on or its not

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Michael W Richards]

Again conjecture on your part, and again evidence of conflicting newspaper reports

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor, in order to dispute that quote...which Josh used, you need to provide something that is equally published at the very least. Conflicting reports are at least something to debate, not accepting formal mention of the fact the remaining apron was on Kate when she is found because you feel differently isn't enough weight to launch any argument against it.

[Trevor Marriott]

Perhaps the answer is revealed by the Daily News' coverage, which has Collard saying;
"The piece of linen produced, which was found in Gouldstone street, corresponds with a piece which is missing from an apron the deceased was wearing at the time of the discovery of the body"

This implies that she was no longer wearing the apron when the clothing was removed and listed at the mortuary. If it had already been removed or dislodged before the list was compiled, then it would naturally be listed with the possessions rather than the clothing.

The why wasnt that piece described as one old white apron with piece missing, insted of one old white apron piece?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Perhaps the answer is revealed by the Daily News' coverage, which has Collard saying;
"The piece of linen produced, which was found in Gouldstone street, corresponds with a piece which is missing from an apron the deceased was wearing at the time of the discovery of the body"

This implies that she was no longer wearing the apron when the clothing was removed and listed at the mortuary. If it had already been removed or dislodged before the list was compiled, then it would naturally be listed with the possessions rather than the clothing.

Again conjecture on your part, and again evidence of conflicting newspaper reports

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby Normal,

He could have cut it to carry the organs I suppose, but my problem with that line is it becomes odd for him to throw it away before he got home (he's not done carrying the organs after all). On the other hand, there is testimony that suggests he may have already got home, and then went out again to discard the apron piece, so that can be reconciled of course. Taking it "in order to sigh the graffiti" presumes he had the notion of leaving a message at the time he killed her. If he did write the graffiti, and it is certainly not a proven fact that he did, that seems more likely to have been a spontaneous thought at the time he got rid of the apron; meaning, while the apron might link the graffiti to him, I don't think JtR was intentionally leaving the apron as a "signature" to the graffiti.

Also, to copy/paste from Steve's previous post (below in quotes), the stains are described as appearing to be from either hands or a knife being wiped on the cloth, which is not consistent with them being used as a wrapper but as being used to clean up.

"Inquest report in The Times, 5th October:

Mr. Crawford: Is it impossible to assert that it is human blood?
Witness: Yes; it is blood. On the piece of apron brought in there were smears of blood on one side as if a hand or a knife had been wiped on it. It fitted the piece of apron in evidence.

The witness in question was Dr Brown.
"

Offenders do learn from previous crimes, and modify their actions as a result. He may very well have recognized the benefit of having a piece of cloth other than his own clothing to clean up after he finished. I don't think anything more complicated than that is necessary to explain why he took it. Certainly there might have been more complicated notions going on in JtR's head at the time, but if so, the evidence we have is insufficient for us to work out what those might have been. And, in the end, they may be nothing more than a convoluted set of notions which, in the end, also just allow him to clean up and so, in his mind, reduce the risk of being spotted with blood and such on his hands that might be visible to others.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff
look at the big picture.

The ripper was interrupted/seen/ disturbed by several jews that night. he knew that. we know that. a portion of a victims bloody apron was found under grafitti incriminating jews. He may have come up with the idea he was going to do it at eddowes murder scene or later once he got back to his bolt hole with his goodies wrapped up in it. yes he may have wiped his hands and or the knife on it at some point.
bottom line it was found under the GSG-both obviously the work of the ripper. even the police at the time thought so.

I mean if they weren't both done intentionally, at the same time, by the ripper-what are we left with? what are the chances theyre unrelated?

In my mind the most likely and logical scenario is the ripper was pissed off at being seen by a bunch of jews that night, decided at some point to use her apron for a little payback/ deflection/obsfucation. dosnt have anything to write with so goes back to his bolt hole to grab some chalk, clean up, drop off knife and goodies, and heads back out to drop the apron and write the gsg. On a well known jewish residence.
Its a narrative that makes total sense and fits the evidence-such as Long not seeing it the first time around.

[Michael W Richards]

I have set out reasons why I say it is unsafe, they are genuine challenges to the testimony, which you seem to want to ignore.

If you or anyone else chooses to ignore the flaws in the evidence which make it unsafe, in favor of your own belief thats your prerogative, but the issues I have highlighted will not go away. I am looking at this in unbiased fashion. Either seeking to prove or disprove the facts as they have been presented all of these years, and those facts when closely analysed do not stand up to close scrutiny that is a fact like it or not !

You and others are stating categorically based on that unsafe evidence that she was wearing an apron, that may not be the case, and if it is not the case there has to be another plausible explanation as to how the apron piece got to Goulston St and who left it there, and why, and was she in fact wearing an apron, or simply in possession of two old pieces of apron which had come from a full apron in the past, because there is no evidence to show that the two pieces made up a full apron.

I have said my piece on this many times before, and it is the same handful that keep making the same challenges relying on the same old explanations, and using the flawed evidence to which they can see no flaws. All evidence it there to be challenged and not readily accepted as some see to want to do.

To be honest I am getting tired of having to keep repeating the same over and over again. As stated there are some that will not accept anything new that challenges the old accepted theories and thats sad.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I am all for challenging some evidence when it reveals something that is not directly contradicted within other known evidence Trevor. The apron section "still attached to the body", on the victim when she is found is certainly not worth disputing. It was noted as such, and there is no reason to imagine anyone was seeing things that were not there. Your beliefs that organs were not taken from the scene is a little more grey, and there is some room to challenge whether the people examining the victims on the street could immediately determine which, if any, organs were missing. In Kellys case it may have been every murkier.

I do not believe that the organs were "harvested" in the morgues myself, but at least you have some room to dicker on that point. You don't on the apron. It was used to match the Goulston piece, and they were from one apron. The one she was seen still partially wearing in Mitre Square.

[Joshua Rogan]

Perhaps the answer is revealed by the Daily News' coverage, which has Collard saying;
"The piece of linen produced, which was found in Gouldstone street, corresponds with a piece which is missing from an apron the deceased was wearing at the time of the discovery of the body"

This implies that she was no longer wearing the apron when the clothing was removed and listed at the mortuary. If it had already been removed or dislodged before the list was compiled, then it would naturally be listed with the possessions rather than the clothing.

[Trevor Marriott]

They didn't mention that she was wearing boots either, but she was. As far as I can recall, they didn't take note of any of her clothing, and why should they have done?

Well all the other police officers who came in contact with her gave statements that they saw her wearing an apron why not Byfield, or was he unsure or being honest ?

Perhaps because they knew that someone had taken the trouble to prove that the pieces unequivocally fitted together.

Conjecture on your part

As Collard presumably wasn't the man tasked with stripping the body and noting what she was wearing, he could only go by the inventory prepared by those who did. It doesn't mean that she wasn't wearing an apron, nor should we doubt it; the fact that part of the apron was "still attached by strings to the body" makes it pretty clear that she was.

But that statement is a misprint by the newspaper

Collard was there when the body was stripped by Mr Davis. The only other persons present were the two doctors, and I am sure they didnt write the list, so Collard must have written it. Davis could not have been actively engaged in removing clothing and writing at the same time. If Davis had have written the list he would have had to have produced it as an exhibit

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sam Flynn]

Note Sgt Byfield the station Sgt who booked her into custody and released her makes no mention of her wearing an apron

They didn't mention that she was wearing boots either, but she was. As far as I can recall, they didn't take note of any of her clothing, and why should they have done?

Then look at Pc Hutt and Pc Robinsons evidence when shown one the apron pieces at the inquest what do they say ? How on earth could they positively identify one piece of old white apron from another

Perhaps because they knew that someone had taken the trouble to prove that the pieces unequivocally fitted together.

Insp Collards statement "Apparently wearing" either she was or she wasnt

As Collard presumably wasn't the man tasked with stripping the body and noting what she was wearing, he could only go by the inventory prepared by those who did. It doesn't mean that she wasn't wearing an apron, nor should we doubt it; the fact that part of the apron was "still attached by strings to the body" makes it pretty clear that she was.

[Michael W Richards]

Michael this I believe is the first time you have actually said the name Isenschmidt. Good on you. A positive declaration. You cordon off the first two victims, Polly Nichols & Annie Chapman so that their particulars need not detain us when discussing any other murder. Such as Kate, the subject of this thread.

If that's what you believe, then fine. You saying that about Isenschmidt puts you LIGHT YEARS ahead of the run-of-the-mill "There Was No Jack The Ripper" posters who drop murky turds into the water, then accuse us of not thinking out of a box, and clinging to old ideas. And they're here doing that all the time, year after year. They can't seem to shake it.

Roy

I can take criticism when warranted Roy. But I believe your casting the net to broadly in your post. I don't diss everyone, and certainly not the majority of alternate theories. I strongly object to any premise that begins..the killer of the Five Canonical women, and Ive been known to do so for quite some time, even with posters that I would refer to as subject mates if not friends.

Ok, the apron section.....a thing that bothers me most about that is that I believe that the apron and the writing arrived at the same time, so that means it must have been by the killer fleeing with his trophies wrapped in the apron piece. Right? If that's so, why would this guy be carrying chalk? Who was out at night and used chalk in their duties. Not many people probably. What if....maybe Long did it. Or someone else, who found the piece discarded someplace near Mitre and took it to a location that was known to be housed in the 90 plus percentile by immigrant jews. To blame the Jews, but maybe for Liz's murder...not necessarily Kates.

[Trevor Marriott]

No Trevor, you found excuses to dismiss the evidence. You started with a police conspiracy type set up, implying the police all lied under oath, you then claim they could not identify the apron despite them saying they did identify it. You have no proof they couldn't do it, the apron did have some unique characteristics (such as the new piece of material sewn to it), so there's reasons to believe they could apart from the fact they testified under oath that they could. Moreover, the apron was found at the scene, they noted she was wearing an apron, so if the one produced is not the apron they recall her wearing, where is that one?

In other words, I'm not ignoring what you presented, I'm rejecting it as being a set of invalid conclusions because the arguments you've put forth are not convincing and require rejecting signed and sworn testimony as unsafe when it doesn't fit your purpose, and yet pointing to something being safe because it was signed when it does. That inconsistency in your arguments structure makes it invalid and not worth paying attention to.

It's certainly a creative story, and would make a great fictional plot line where bizarre and improbable events are the name of the game, but when applied to the real world it just doesn't work.

- Jeff

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

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

They were never cross examined, and their evidence tested so you cannot rely on it as being totally correct. Just because they were police doesn't mean they told the truth. 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

[JeffHamm]

I have set out reasons why I say it is unsafe, they are genuine challenges to the testimony, which you seem to want to ignore.

If you or anyone else chooses to ignore the flaws in the evidence which make it unsafe, in favor of your own belief thats your prerogative, but the issues I have highlighted will not go away. I am looking at this in unbiased fashion. Either seeking to prove or disprove the facts as they have been presented all of these years, and those facts when closely analysed do not stand up to close scrutiny that is a fact like it or not !

You and others are stating categorically based on that unsafe evidence that she was wearing an apron, that may not be the case, and if it is not the case there has to be another plausible explanation as to how the apron piece got to Goulston St and who left it there, and why, and was she in fact wearing an apron, or simply in possession of two old pieces of apron which had come from a full apron in the past, because there is no evidence to show that the two pieces made up a full apron.

I have said my piece on this many times before, and it is the same handful that keep making the same challenges relying on the same old explanations, and using the flawed evidence to which they can see no flaws. All evidence it there to be challenged and not readily accepted as some see to want to do.

To be honest I am getting tired of having to keep repeating the same over and over again. As stated there are some that will not accept anything new that challenges the old accepted theories and thats sad.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

No Trevor, you found excuses to dismiss the evidence. You started with a police conspiracy type set up, implying the police all lied under oath, you then claim they could not identify the apron despite them saying they did identify it. You have no proof they couldn't do it, the apron did have some unique characteristics (such as the new piece of material sewn to it), so there's reasons to believe they could apart from the fact they testified under oath that they could. Moreover, the apron was found at the scene, they noted she was wearing an apron, so if the one produced is not the apron they recall her wearing, where is that one?

In other words, I'm not ignoring what you presented, I'm rejecting it as being a set of invalid conclusions because the arguments you've put forth are not convincing and require rejecting signed and sworn testimony as unsafe when it doesn't fit your purpose, and yet pointing to something being safe because it was signed when it does. That inconsistency in your arguments structure makes it invalid and not worth paying attention to.

It's certainly a creative story, and would make a great fictional plot line where bizarre and improbable events are the name of the game, but when applied to the real world it just doesn't work.

- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

Ah, of course, so you're saying, evidence is safe when it fits your view, but unsafe when it doesn't. Got it.

- Jeff

I have set out reasons why I say it is unsafe, they are genuine challenges to the testimony, which you seem to want to ignore.

If you or anyone else chooses to ignore the flaws in the evidence which make it unsafe, in favor of your own belief thats your prerogative, but the issues I have highlighted will not go away. I am looking at this in unbiased fashion. Either seeking to prove or disprove the facts as they have been presented all of these years, and those facts when closely analysed do not stand up to close scrutiny that is a fact like it or not !

You and others are stating categorically based on that unsafe evidence that she was wearing an apron, that may not be the case, and if it is not the case there has to be another plausible explanation as to how the apron piece got to Goulston St and who left it there, and why, and was she in fact wearing an apron, or simply in possession of two old pieces of apron which had come from a full apron in the past, because there is no evidence to show that the two pieces made up a full apron.

I have said my piece on this many times before, and it is the same handful that keep making the same challenges relying on the same old explanations, and using the flawed evidence to which they can see no flaws. All evidence it there to be challenged and not readily accepted as some see to want to do.

To be honest I am getting tired of having to keep repeating the same over and over again. As stated there are some that will not accept anything new that challenges the old accepted theories and thats sad.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk