Kates Cuts

[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!

[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.

[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

[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.

[Roy Corduroy]

... my position has been dictated the past few years by the belief the man in the pub down the street from Annies murder, bloodied, in the early morning...was probably her killer, and by logical inclusion, Pollys. That man was probably Isenschmidt. He isn't free when the remaining Canonicals are killed.

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

[Trevor Marriott]

I suspect the apron was taken and used mostly to clean/wipe his hands on. If he used it for carrying the organ I don't see why he would have disposed of it before getting home, though there is the possibility he got home, unwrapped the organs, then went out again to get rid of it I suppose. Cutting his hand and getting an infection as a result would possibly occur simply due to having damaged the bowel, removing the colon, etc, and getting feces on his hands. The apron used as a cleaning rag (for his hands and knife) because of the fecal matter and blood from Eddowes, rather than for a possible cut per se, seems the simplest reason for taking it. I believe one of the medical professionals testifies the stains on it looked like someone had wiped a knife (hands?) on it?

If he did write the graffiti (and that is not a sure thing), then it would also make sense that he would drop the apron while doing that, and if he was done with wiping up, then at that point he has no reason to pick it back up. But how one views all of that also depends upon when the apron and graffiti were put there, and the testimony is that it was about an hour or so after the murder, which implies JtR went home, then returned. The alternative is that those were just missed earlier in the night, and were deposited/written as he fled. The latter feels more likely, but the testimony is for the former. And pending on which of those one starts with greatly changes what JtR was doing when the apron/graffiti ended up where they were.

- Jeff

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.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[c.d.]

The piece of apron could have been taken as a trophy in the heat of the moment. At some point, he realizes just how incriminating it would be to be caught with it on him and tosses it.

c.d.

[JeffHamm]

hi jeff
good idea and him using it for a cut is possible. however. lawende described "sailorman" having a hanky around his neck. if cut wouldnt the first thing he would do would be to use that? and not some tainted portion of a victims apron?

My theory is he cut the apron to sign the graffiti. or to carry the organ in and when he got home decided to use it to sign the graffiti. a little payback to all those pesky jews who had spotted him that night.

I suspect the apron was taken and used mostly to clean/wipe his hands on. If he used it for carrying the organ I don't see why he would have disposed of it before getting home, though there is the possibility he got home, unwrapped the organs, then went out again to get rid of it I suppose. Cutting his hand and getting an infection as a result would possibly occur simply due to having damaged the bowel, removing the colon, etc, and getting feces on his hands. The apron used as a cleaning rag (for his hands and knife) because of the fecal matter and blood from Eddowes, rather than for a possible cut per se, seems the simplest reason for taking it. I believe one of the medical professionals testifies the stains on it looked like someone had wiped a knife (hands?) on it?

If he did write the graffiti (and that is not a sure thing), then it would also make sense that he would drop the apron while doing that, and if he was done with wiping up, then at that point he has no reason to pick it back up. But how one views all of that also depends upon when the apron and graffiti were put there, and the testimony is that it was about an hour or so after the murder, which implies JtR went home, then returned. The alternative is that those were just missed earlier in the night, and were deposited/written as he fled. The latter feels more likely, but the testimony is for the former. And pending on which of those one starts with greatly changes what JtR was doing when the apron/graffiti ended up where they were.

- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

Hand. Singular. The one with the $hit on it. Besides, who's to say there weren't smears on both sides?

PS: you can forget it if that was a prequel to bringing up your ludicrous "Eddowes used the apron as a sanitary rag, hence the faeces and blood found on it".

The truth hurts doesnt it ?

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

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sam Flynn]

Not in a month of Sundays !!!!!!! if he had have wiped his hands on it then the smears etc would have been on both sides on the apron piece.

Hand. Singular. The one with the $hit on it. Besides, who's to say there weren't smears on both sides?

PS: you can forget it if that was a prequel to bringing up your ludicrous "Eddowes used the apron as a sanitary rag, hence the faeces and blood found on it".

[Trevor Marriott]

He'd have needed extra moments to score the rest of the face, lop off one earlobe and nick the eyelids. Personally I believe the chevrons were deliberately sliced, albeit not "carved" into the skin according to some grand plan. Amongst all these other cuts, the hacking off of the tip of the nose seems like just another "playful" improvisation, and little more.

So now in addition to having the time to walk into the square with the victim, kill, and mutilate her abdomen, remove a kidney and uterus, then rifle her pockets, and then cut a piece of her apron, finishing up by artistically carving out her face. all in under 5 mins.

Come on wake up to reality !!!!!!!!!!!!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

As to why the killer would need a section of apron, the simplest solution was that he accidentally cut himself and needed an improvised bandage. Based on the fact the torn apron piece had "some blood and apparently faecal matter" on it and the intestines pulled from the body "were smeared over with some feculent matter.", there is a good chance the wound would become infected, which could explain the long gap between the Eddowes and Kelly killings.

If the killer had wanted something to stem a cut, why did he go for the piece of clothing that was the furthest away from him. If she was wearing an apron then it would have been buried under all her other clothes because they were all pulled up above her waist.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

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.

Not in a month of Sundays !!!!!!! if he had have wiped his hands on it then the smears etc would have been on both sides on the apron piece.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

I find it astonishing that you actually belive this .

Take a closer look at the angle of the facial cuts !

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

In which case, Eddowes was not incapacitated. Strange how no one heard this struggle taking place. Also, the nature of those injuries does not speak to defensive wounds.

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

Btw, do you always have to be so edgy and contrarian?

There was no Ripper.
The killer never took organs.
The apron piece was a menstrual rag.
The facial wounds weren't deliberate.
etc etc.

Can you disprove any of the above, no you cant !

It's all so tiresome and one-note. Questioning the status quo, regardless of the evidence, doesn't make you a special snowflake, Trevor.

I question it because you and others are blinded by the old accepted facts, take the blinkers off

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk