Kate's Apron

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,

Except for the point that PC Harvey probably scared him off, in which case grabbing a piece of cloth might have been more prudent. It occurs to me, that he may have cut the apron at the start trying to get through her clothes, decided that would take too long after cutting just that, and so then cut through all the others more chaotically. When PC Harvey shows up, he grabs the nearest piece of cloth to clean up as he flees, and then dumps it as he has no further need for it.

- Jeff

Jeff
I dont think for one minute that happened, her clothes were up around her waist when she was found the evidence shows she was stabbed through her outer clothing, I cant see the killer p...y footing around when he would have been on high alert for fear of discovery.

Besides we see no evidence of that taking place with any of the other murders, and besides your suggestion does not stand up because "if" he had have done that, then there would have been no need for him to take it with him all that way to GS, when he could have discarded it within a stones throw away from Mitre Square having wiped his knife and hands,and of course, the longer he had incriminating evidence in his possession the more likely he might be stopped by a policeman.

I get back to highlighting the fact that there was only residue on one side of the apron piece not consistent with someone with bloody hands and a bloody knife wiping them on material, if that had happened there would have been residue on both sides.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

The apron had to have contact with the knife/hand during the cutting/holding/carrying, and/or maybe with the clothes or body accidentally and that's how the blood/fecal matter got into the apron.

But there was no blood or fecal matter on the mortuary piece nor were there any cuts consistent with the fact that she was stabbed through her outer clothing

Also how about wiping his hands on the water in the ground,it was raining on and off, and then partly wiping his hands on the apron or holding the apron again and then move again as he was trying to escape and repeat once/twice.You are focused too much on that the apron was used solely to wipe or carry organs

I think the suggestion that he carried away the organs in it has now died a death with researchers, had that have happened the apron piece would be heavily bloodstained.

The longer he had the apron piece in his possession the the greater the risk of being stopped by the police and being found with incriminating evidence.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

I believe he needed and carried the apron for an hour to put it in Goulston or another suitable place and write the graffito.

But if the killer didn't deposit the apron piece then he couldn't have written the graffiti, and that is why the graffiti has no connection the the Eddowes murder or any other murder.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Jeff
I dont think for one minute that happened, her clothes were up around her waist when she was found the evidence shows she was stabbed through her outer clothing, I cant see the killer p...y footing around when he would have been on high alert for fear of discovery.

Besides we see no evidence of that taking place with any of the other murders, and besides your suggestion does not stand up because "if" he had have done that, then there would have been no need for him to take it with him all that way to GS, when he could have discarded it within a stones throw away from Mitre Square having wiped his knife and hands,and of course, the longer he had incriminating evidence in his possession the more likely he might be stopped by a policeman.

I get back to highlighting the fact that there was only residue on one side of the apron piece not consistent with someone with bloody hands and a bloody knife wiping them on material, if that had happened there would have been residue on both sides.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

The problem is that none of us were there. I can understand your point when you say “I can’t see the killer ***** footing around......” but none of us are serial killers (I hope) so it’s impossible for us know how he would have been thinking at the time.

Might he not have taken the piece of cloth away as a souvenir and then, when he got to Goulston Street (perhaps as he passed a street lamp) he noticed that he had blood on his trousers or his shoes and panicked about running into a police officer. He was unlikely to have stood on the pavement wiping away blood so he ducks into the doorway, wipes away the blood, then perhaps he realises that it would be too risky to keep the cloth so he changes his mind and discards it?

The above suggestion isn’t required of course if the killer wrote the grafitto because the cloth would have been a pointer to the fact that it was actually written by the ripper.

Your point about only one side beings stained isn’t so easy to explain though. Might he have wiped his knife/hands with the cloth being folded in half?

[Herlock Sholmes]

The Owl and the ***** Cat
***** Willow by Jethro Tull
***** Galore played by Honor Blackman
*****-Cat Sits By The Fire by Beatrix Potter

The world’s gone mad I’m afraid.

[Trevor Marriott]

The problem is that none of us were there. I can understand your point when you say “I can’t see the killer ***** footing around......” but none of us are serial killers (I hope) so it’s impossible for us know how he would have been thinking at the time.

But anyone who kills someone in a public place has to be conscious of his surroundings and be on high alert to not be discovered.

Might he not have taken the piece of cloth away as a souvenir and then, when he got to Goulston Street (perhaps as he passed a street lamp) he noticed that he had blood on his trousers or his shoes and panicked about running into a police officer. He was unlikely to have stood on the pavement wiping away blood so he ducks into the doorway, wipes away the blood, then perhaps he realises that it would be too risky to keep the cloth so he changes his mind and discards it?

We are back to the if`s, mights, maybes, and perhaps, but analyzing and carefully scrutinizing the factual evidence does not lend itself to corroborating those suggestions. Because not forgetting that if we accept that she was not wearing an apron, then the killer could not have cut a piece in any event.

The above suggestion isn’t required of course if the killer wrote the grafitto because the cloth would have been a pointer to the fact that it was actually written by the ripper.

Your point about only one side beings stained isn’t so easy to explain though. Might he have wiped his knife/hands with the cloth being folded in half?

But if he had blood on his hands the there would be residue on both sides because he would have to hold the piece with one hand while he wiped the knife and his hands and if he had wiped his hands or the knife, again there would be blood on both sides . Try s simple test take your handkerchief out of your pocket and pretend to wipe your hands you cant do it by reason of how you are holding it, if your hands were bloody residue would be transmitted to both sides, and if we are to be believed that the killer had his hands deep into the victims abdomen which would have been blood filled and mixed with fecal matter then both his hands would be covered in residue.

Not forgetting that he could have wiped his hands and knife on her clothing before leaving the crime scene

Isnt it time to get away from the old accepted theories when they are clearly flawed?

www.trevormarrriott.co.uk

[Varqm]

I think the suggestion that he carried away the organs in it has now died a death with researchers, had that have happened the apron piece would be heavily bloodstained.

The longer he had the apron piece in his possession the the greater the risk of being stopped by the police and being found with incriminating evidence.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

The apron had to have contact with the knife/hand during the cutting/holding/carrying, and/or maybe with the clothes or body accidentally and that's how the blood/fecal matter got into the apron.

What's in there that said he carried the organs in the apron.What I was saying is holding/carrying/cutting the apron itself would transfer fecal matter/blood to it,that's why it did not contain large amounts of blood.As I said what if he came prepared and had a pouch/container for the organs,that's why he could threw away the then useless apron.He dealt with the mess during the Chapman case.
What if he had a bolthole-a temporary one like a shop or hiding place,and did not want to throw the apron then because it was too close to his bolt-hole,he tolerated/accepted the smell/risk of it.
Also what if he wanted to write something then he had to hold on to the apron and deal with the smell/risk.How would you know he did not write the graffito?

[Trevor Marriott]

The apron had to have contact with the knife/hand during the cutting/holding/carrying, and/or maybe with the clothes or body accidentally and that's how the blood/fecal matter got into the apron.

What's in there that said he carried the organs in the apron.What I was saying is holding/carrying/cutting the apron itself would transfer fecal matter/blood to it,that's why it did not contain large amounts of blood.As I said what if he came prepared and had a pouch/container for the organs,that's why he could threw away the then useless apron.He dealt with the mess during the Chapman case.
What if he had a bolthole-a temporary one like a shop or hiding place,and did not want to throw the apron then because it was too close to his bolt-hole,he tolerated/accepted the smell/risk of it.
Also what if he wanted to write something then he had to hold on to the apron and deal with the smell/risk.How would you know he did not write the graffito?

Does the graffiti have any connection to a murder -No
can we prove the killer wrote it -No
Can we prove the killer deposited the apron piece -No

Why would the killer walk all that way to GS to deposit a piece of apron and write graffiti on a wall, when he could have deposited anywhere between MS and GS. The apron piece could have been found by any Tom Dick or Harry and be treated as just that an old piece of apron and the graffiti treated as just that graffiti with neither being connected to Eddowes murder. Why cant people apply some logic to this murder instead of having their heads buried in the sand readily accepting the old theories.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sunny Delight]

I think the most likely scenario is that PC Long missed the apron at 2:20am and despite his confidence that does not equal accuracy. There are caveats to that confidence also. It was his first time patrolling the area and later he copies the graffitti down in a way that becomes disputed. Now that is not to disparage Long or say he was incompetent but rather there is every possibility he overlooked the apron. I don't believe JTR wrote the Goulston Street Graffitti although it cannot be discounted. My own view is a simple and straightforward one. JTR flees Mitre Square with the apron after killing Eddowes, he makes his way quickly North east and in an open doorway discards the apron in Goulston Street. He continues back to his home. PC Long overlooks the apron at 2:20am but it doesn't matter anyways JTR is long gone.

The graffitti etc is a red herring for me. The absolutely crucial thing about that night is the apron. It is clear JTR is heading back deep into Whitechapel from Mitre Square. This is a man who lives locally. It is almost inevitable that during the house to house enquiries he was spoken too. That is a scary and creepy thought.

[Herlock Sholmes]

But if he had blood on his hands the there would be residue on both sides because he would have to hold the piece with one hand while he wiped the knife and his hands and if he had wiped his hands or the knife, again there would be blood on both sides . Try s simple test take your handkerchief out of your pocket and pretend to wipe your hands you cant do it by reason of how you are holding it, if your hands were bloody residue would be transmitted to both sides, and if we are to be believed that the killer had his hands deep into the victims abdomen which would have been blood filled and mixed with fecal matter then both his hands would be covered in residue.

Not forgetting that he could have wiped his hands and knife on her clothing before leaving the crime scene

Isnt it time to get away from the old accepted theories when they are clearly flawed?

www.trevormarrriott.co.uk

Take a piece of cloth and fold it in half. Wipe your bloodied hands on it then unfold it. You will have blood only on one side.

And why should we accept that she wasn’t wearing an apron. The two halves matched.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Does the graffiti have any connection to a murder -No

This is your opinion Trevor, it’s not a fact.

can we prove the killer wrote it -No

True, but can we prove that he didn’t - No.

Can we prove the killer deposited the apron piece -No

True, but as it had blood on it and it matched the Eddowes apron then it has to be the likeliest explanation.

Why would the killer walk all that way to GS to deposit a piece of apron and write graffiti on a wall, when he could have deposited anywhere between MS and GS.

We can’t know that Trevor but we can’t prove that he didn’t. As I said earlier, he may nor have noticed straight away that he had blood on his shoes or trousers for eg. Or he might have put it there because he did write the grafitto and wanted to draw attention to it with an item from the crime scene.

The apron piece could have been found by any Tom Dick or Harry and be treated as just that an old piece of apron and the graffiti treated as just that graffiti with neither being connected to Eddowes murder. Why cant people apply some logic to this murder instead of having their heads buried in the sand readily accepting the old theories.

Because that’s not what you’re doing Trevor. Yes we can’t say for certain why the killer dropped the apron there but likewise you can’t prove that he didn’t. Logic tells us to pay attention to Brown who tells us that both pieces matched. Unless you believe him to have been an incompetent or a part of some cover up?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I’m sorry Trevor but you’ve got history on this. Finding minor discrepancies; different wordings or descriptions and even slight errors does not equate to disproving something. Why should anyone discard a theory when it hasn’t been disproven? Even doubts don’t disprove a theory so why the call to dismiss? Theories become “old and accepted” because they’ve stood up to scrutiny. Any possible doubts raised have been outweighed by what we know. You’re mantra is “the old accepted theories,” so I’ll use my own. You’re constable resorting to “Conspiracy Theorist Thinking.” It’s revisionism for the sake of it and not because the facts warrant it.

[Trevor Marriott]

Take a piece of cloth and fold it in half. Wipe your bloodied hands on it then unfold it. You will have blood only on one side.

Yes but you will then have a significant amount of residue spread over a larger area of the cloth, we dont have a significant amount of residue do we as described,and if he had blood and fecal matter were on his hands when he took hold of the cloth to fold it he would still deposit residue on both sides.

And why should we accept that she wasn’t wearing an apron. The two halves matched.

Yes they matched but here was no evidence to show that they then made up a full apron, and with one of the pieces being found in her possessions creates a massive doubt about the fact that she was wearing an apron as has been suggested, and that she simply had been in possession of two old pieces of white apron which at some time previous had been cut from a full apron which was no longer in existence

So you are suggesting the killer cut the apron piece and then took the time to fold it nice and neatly when it would have been easier to wipe knife and hands on her clothing I know you mean well but you are desperately trying every means possible to prop up the old accepted theories but they are flawed.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

I’m sorry Trevor but you’ve got history on this. Finding minor discrepancies; different wordings or descriptions and even slight errors does not equate to disproving something. Why should anyone discard a theory when it hasn’t been disproven? Even doubts don’t disprove a theory so why the call to dismiss? Theories become “old and accepted” because they’ve stood up to scrutiny. Any possible doubts raised have been outweighed by what we know. You’re mantra is “the old accepted theories,” so I’ll use my own. You’re constable resorting to “Conspiracy Theorist Thinking.” It’s revisionism for the sake of it and not because the facts warrant it.

No, theories become old and accepted because the original theories have not been fully tested for 130 years and now that testing has been conducted the results suggest that in this case they are flawed.

Why should we accept a theory when it is clearly flawed

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

No, theories become old and accepted because the original theories have not been fully tested for 130 years and now that testing has been conducted the results suggest that in this case they are flawed.

Why should we accept a theory when it is clearly flawed

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

No, what you’re saying is “Now that I’ve looked at it I say that we should discard it.”

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes they matched but here was no evidence to show that they then made up a full apron, and with one of the pieces being found in her possessions creates a massive doubt about the fact that she was wearing an apron as has been suggested, and that she simply had been in possession of two old pieces of white apron which at some time previous had been cut from a full apron which was no longer in existence

So you are suggesting the killer cut the apron piece and then took the time to fold it nice and neatly when it would have been easier to wipe knife and hands on her clothing I know you mean well but you are desperately trying every means possible to prop up the old accepted theories but they are flawed.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

As long as one piece matched the other where is the problem? Did the piece found in Goulston Street match the piece in Mitre Square? Yes it did. Was it an apron? Yes it was. So you can nitpick all you like. The debate is pointless and hopeless. The killer dropped the piece of apron in Goulston Street. Time to let this go.