Kates Cuts

[Joshua Rogan]

If he had one hand over her mouth and the other wielding the knife. There would not be any sounds that anyone would hear

Except perhaps the sound of the attacker himself screaming as he repeatedly plunged his knife into her face through his own hand.

[JeffHamm]

There is no logic to him discarding a piece of screwed up soiled apron, and then writing the graffiti at a secluded location some distance from the crime scene. How could he have known that if found they would they be linked to the murder in any event, and what if they hadn't been found. If the killer was going to send a message. There were much easier ways. For instance if he had cut the apron he could have sent that to the police. or if he had taken the organs equally he could have done the same with them.

Thinking out of the box is a trait that some do not seem to be able to do.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor,

Yes, as the bit that reads "and that is not a sure thing" indicates, I'm not convinced the graffiti was written by JtR. It's proximity to the apron makes it something that has to be considered, unless you're holding back on actual evidence to the contrary of course. If he didn't, it's all very simple, he discarded the apron, either on route to home, or after getting there and he comes out again to discard of it later. I do find the latter the more difficult to accept, but the testimony we have does point in that direction so it cannot be dismissed based upon evidence available, only based upon making assumptions about that evidence.

Also, as indicated, if he did write the graffiti, it seems reasonable that he would drop the apron to do so, not so much as a "signature", but just to free his hands, get his chalk, and scrawl his message. Being done with the apron by that point, there's no need to retrieve it. That, to me, makes more sense if all of this happened as he left the crime scene though. If he's gone home and is now discarding of evidence, it seems odd to take that precaution and yet still hang around to write a chalk note.

The organs would have some sort of value to him, so he's not going to leave them, while the apron appears to have just served a functional purpose.

As for the graffiti, as I say, I'm not convinced he wrote it. Only it's proximity to the apron, and the police testimony that neither the apron nor the graffiti were there earlier, make it necessary to consider the possibility that he might have. If he did, I agree with you that it's a strange message and it certainly is not obviously in reference to Eddowes murder, all we can presume is that it had some significance to JtR, but what that could be is not something we can know. Perhaps it reflects the working of a disturbed mind, in which case the oddness of returning to discard the apron so close to the scene, and to remain there writing a message, would also reflect that (as would the nature of the murders themselves).

So, as I was saying, the simplest explanation to me is that JtR took the apron piece to clean his hands/knife, discarded it once he had time to flee the immediate vicinity and clean up a bit, did not write the graffiti, and continued on his way home (where ever that may be), and the police constable patrolling the area missed it the first time around.

But, that last bit is the rub. The PC, as I recall, is quite sure neither the apron nor the graffiti was there, which means either he's mistaken (for which I have no proof or evidence), lying (same problem), or the simplest explanation is wrong.

- Jeff

[Sam Flynn]

The truth hurts doesnt it ?

Dr Brown
"On the piece of apron brought on there were smears of blood on one side"

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I repeat.... Hand. Singular. The one with the $hit on it.

[Sam Flynn]

Except perhaps the sound of the attacker himself screaming as he repeatedly plunged his knife into her face through his own hand.

Or, according to Trevor’s idea, as she plunged her own face repeatedly onto the knife to avoid getting her throat cut!

[Trevor Marriott]

So, as I was saying, the simplest explanation to me is that JtR took the apron piece to clean his hands/knife, discarded it once he had time to flee the immediate vicinity and clean up a bit, did not write the graffiti, and continued on his way home (where ever that may be), and the police constable patrolling the area missed it the first time around.

- Jeff

But if that had have been the case he could have done that with the apron piece within a few yards of leaving Mitre Square. There would have been no need for him to carry the apron piece that distance before discarding it with the added the risk of being found with incriminating evidence on him.

In addition to the fact that if he was disturbed by Pc Harvey he would not have had time to cut the apron piece.

But yet again we are going over old ground that that be gone over countless times over the years.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Or, according to Trevor’s idea, as she plunged her own face repeatedly onto the knife to avoid getting her throat cut!

Now you are showing clear evidence of a ripperologist with his head stuck up his on backside

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sam Flynn]

Now you are showing clear evidence of a ripperologist with his head stuck up his on backside

I'm just playing back your own take on how Kate's facial wounds came about.

[FISHY1118]

Now you are showing clear evidence of a ripperologist with his head stuck up his on backside

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 ?

[JeffHamm]

But if that had have been the case he could have done that with the apron piece within a few yards of leaving Mitre Square. There would have been no need for him to carry the apron piece that distance before discarding it with the added the risk of being found with incriminating evidence on him.

In addition to the fact that if he was disturbed by Pc Harvey he would not have had time to cut the apron piece.

But yet again we are going over old ground that that be gone over countless times over the years.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Yes, those things seem strange. But then, if you're fleeing a crime scene, the first priority is just distance. The apron piece he obviously took, but when that happened we don't know, we just know he cut it and took it, and it ends up in Goulston Street. Why he chose to take it that far (or go back there later with it), is a mystery. The idea of heading back to the scene in order to get rid of the apron is harder to reason through than the idea of him dropping it while exiting the location, and just taking longer for some unknowable reason.

Cutting the apron probably would require 2 seconds (grab the cloth, cut it), but I suspect he cut it at the point he removed the colon and got his hands soiled, and not at the point PC Harvey showed up. I think you're right on that, at that point, there's no time for cutting cloth.

- Jeff

[Sam Flynn]

Yes, those things seem strange. But then, if you're fleeing a crime scene, the first priority is just distance.

Exactly. Goulston Street was just far enough away to put "clear blue water" between the killer and the crime scene, but not so far away that he'd be at risk of capture by staying in the open for too long.

[Trevor Marriott]

Yes, those things seem strange. But then, if you're fleeing a crime scene, the first priority is just distance. The apron piece he obviously took, but when that happened we don't know, we just know he cut it and took it, and it ends up in Goulston Street. Why he chose to take it that far (or go back there later with it), is a mystery. The idea of heading back to the scene in order to get rid of the apron is harder to reason through than the idea of him dropping it while exiting the location, and just taking longer for some unknowable reason.

No the first priority if you hear some coming is escape

He could only have cut it if she was wearing an apron, there is enough evidence to show that she may not have been, but lets not go over all that again.

Cutting the apron probably would require 2 seconds (grab the cloth, cut it), but I suspect he cut it at the point he removed the colon and got his hands soiled, and not at the point PC Harvey showed up. I think you're right on that, at that point, there's no time for cutting cloth.

But I keep saying that the clothes were up above her waist the apron would have been the hardest piece of clothing to locate and cut quickly, and why would he have done that when here were other clothes that were more accessible to cut.

As to wiping his hands or a knife he could have done that on her clothes, no need to cut and take away an apron piece and he ceratinly didnt take away any organs in it

- Jeff

i have said before many of the old accepted theories do not now stand up to close scrutiny

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Harry D]

Thinking out of the box is a trait that some do not seem to be able to do.

As opposed to thinking out of one's tree, which is your forte.

[JeffHamm]

Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post
Yes, those things seem strange. But then, if you're fleeing a crime scene, the first priority is just distance. The apron piece he obviously took, but when that happened we don't know, we just know he cut it and took it, and it ends up in Goulston Street. Why he chose to take it that far (or go back there later with it), is a mystery. The idea of heading back to the scene in order to get rid of the apron is harder to reason through than the idea of him dropping it while exiting the location, and just taking longer for some unknowable reason.

No the first priority if you hear some coming is escape

He could only have cut it if she was wearing an apron, there is enough evidence to show that she may not have been, but lets not go over all that again.

Cutting the apron probably would require 2 seconds (grab the cloth, cut it), but I suspect he cut it at the point he removed the colon and got his hands soiled, and not at the point PC Harvey showed up. I think you're right on that, at that point, there's no time for cutting cloth.

But I keep saying that the clothes were up above her waist the apron would have been the hardest piece of clothing to locate and cut quickly, and why would he have done that when here were other clothes that were more accessible to cut.

As to wiping his hands or a knife he could have done that on her clothes, no need to cut and take away an apron piece and he ceratinly didnt take away any organs in it

- Jeff

i have said before many of the old accepted theories do not now stand up to close scrutiny

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Well, changing the word "distance" to "escape" is just describing the same thing Trevor, so we actually agree.

And I'm pretty sure the police at the station described her as wearing the apron, so I'm not sure what you're getting at. It's described as part of her belongings, and the portion found at Goulston Street was compared with it. So, as far as evidence goes, there's a sum total of zero to say she wasn't wearing one.

you're presuming when he cut the apron. We don't know. He may have cut it before starting on the abdominal mutilations. Maybe his experience with Chapman prompted it? Maybe the apron, when he shifted her clothes, was still accessible and he grabbed a piece and cut it? I don't know, but it's not hard to imagine a bunch of specific situations where cutting a piece of cloth off her apron would be trivially easy, if you think outside your box for a little bit. What I do know is she was wearing one, a piece of material was cut from it, and later found in Goulston street.

Sure, he could have stuck around and wiped his hands on her clothes, but if he had cut the apron when it was easily accessible because his experience with Chapman taught him that might be useful, then when PC Harvey arrives, as you say, his priority is to escape by putting distance between himself and the crime scene. Having that piece of cloth would allow him to wipe up once he's distanced himself enough.

- Jeff

[Fiver]

Given the sharpness of the Ripper's knife, a cut hand would probably have released a lot of blood onto the apron, causing a decent-sized patch of bood to be apparent somewhere on the cloth. As it was, what was described was a smear "as if a hand had been wiped on it". I'm inclined to believe that this description fits pretty much exactly what happened; the killer got blood and caca on his hand, and used the apron piece as a makeshift towel.

Using an apron piece as a makeshift towel is a reasonable explanation, but in that case wouldn't the killer discard the blood and feces covered apron piece at the scene rather than carrying it around for at least half an hour.

Also, what witness described the bloodstain as a smear "as if a hand had been wiped on it".

[Sam Flynn]

Using an apron piece as a makeshift towel is a reasonable explanation, but in that case wouldn't the killer discard the blood and feces covered apron piece at the scene

Not if he had to get out of there quickly. A fæces-smeared hand can take quite some cleaning, and I don't think he'd want to be hanging around at the crime scene trying to decontaminate his cacky hand, particularly if he'd heard PC Harvey and/or Watkins approaching. (Not that he knew their names, but you get my drift.)

rather than carrying it around for at least half an hour.

Indeed, but Goulston Street is only about a 5 minute walk away from Mitre Square.

Also, what witness described the bloodstain as a smear "as if a hand had been wiped on it".

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.