Kate's Apron

[Abby Normal]

I'm not aware of any detailed description of the positioning of the apron - it would be useful to know whether it was scrunched up in the corner or laid out prominently.

I've wondered if the writing was 'pre-written'. The three key questions for me regarding the apron are 'why did he cut it up'?, 'why did he take it with him'? and 'why did he leave it where he did'? That he placed it there to associate the crime with the writing is the only explanation I've seen that answers all three (in a straightforward manner). If it was to clean up it would be quicker and easier to take the whole apron - and why dump it?

The writing doesn't really make sense to me as racist graffiti so I figure it's connected.

All the best.

hi greenway and welcome! The ripper intentionally cut away the apron and left it with the GSG (which he wrote) to sign it. And considering the events of that evening and the ripper being disturbed/seen/interupted by Jew/s that night and the meaning of the gsg being disparaging to jews I think its fairly obvious the ripper was giving a little pay pack to said jews and some obsfucation to the police. It was also a mainy jewish residence and one of the residents would have surly wiped it off if it had been their any length of time and seen-that writing never saw the light of day.

[Abby Normal]

Long's evidence is the only evidence that can be considered,and he isn't possitive the writing and the apron piece were both present on both occassions.

long was positive the apron wasnt there the first time he came around.

[harry]

Long's evidence is the only evidence that can be considered,and he isn't possitive the writing and the apron piece were both present on both occassions.

[Greenway]

Welcome Greenway.

Thanks

[Doctored Whatsit]

I'm not aware of any detailed description of the positioning of the apron - it would be useful to know whether it was scrunched up in the corner or laid out prominently.

I've wondered if the writing was 'pre-written'. The three key questions for me regarding the apron are 'why did he cut it up'?, 'why did he take it with him'? and 'why did he leave it where he did'? That he placed it there to associate the crime with the writing is the only explanation I've seen that answers all three (in a straightforward manner). If it was to clean up it would be quicker and easier to take the whole apron - and why dump it?

The writing doesn't really make sense to me as racist graffiti so I figure it's connected.

All the best.

Welcome Greenway. I am inclined to agree. Of course, we are all making assumptions based on our perceived senses of possibilities and probabilities.

It seems unlikely that the message would have been left on the wall for very long without being removed by the residents who were predominently Jewish, and it would be a remarkable coincidence for the writer and JtR to pick the same spot for their two totally different intended tasks. Yes, as you say, the message on its own, without the bloody apron, is a vague and general and not particularly clear and valid racial slur, until the apron appears, and then the significance of the "blame" is indicated. Without the apron, the reader will wonder what specific event the writer is complaining about.

[Greenway]

What did Long see first,the writing or the apron piece? He is sure about the apron not being present on one inspection,but is not sure about the writing.So both items have to be assessed separately.Now if the writing was in place on the inspection prior to the finding of the apron,and the killer is responsible for both,it could raise interesting questions...

[Coroner] Which did you notice first - the piece of apron or the writing on the wall? - The piece of apron, one corner of which was wet with blood.

[Coroner] How came you to observe the writing on the wall? - I saw it while trying to discover whether there were any marks of blood about.

I'm not aware of any detailed description of the positioning of the apron - it would be useful to know whether it was scrunched up in the corner or laid out prominently.

I've wondered if the writing was 'pre-written'. The three key questions for me regarding the apron are 'why did he cut it up'?, 'why did he take it with him'? and 'why did he leave it where he did'? That he placed it there to associate the crime with the writing is the only explanation I've seen that answers all three (in a straightforward manner). If it was to clean up it would be quicker and easier to take the whole apron - and why dump it?

The writing doesn't really make sense to me as racist graffiti so I figure it's connected.

All the best.

[harry]

Was the excrement on the apron piece fresh or old?.There was no reporting of any foul smell. How much would it take to attract a person passing by?
Long was drafted in to help,and was assigned special duties.Would be interesting to know whether those duties related to watching for persons on the streets,rather than normal patrol duties,

[JeffHamm]

The doctor simply gave an opinion.

Try an experiment dip both your hands in a tin of red paint and then try to pick up a white cloth and wipe you hands without getting paint on both sides.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

I forgot to add, that yes, of course the doctor gave his opinion. But his opinion was drawn from actually seeing the evidence rather than an opinion being drawn to suit a theory derived by someone who has not seen the evidence.

- Jeff

[harry]

What did Long see first,the writing or the apron piece? He is sure about the apron not being present on one inspection,but is not sure about the writing.So both items have to be assessed separately.Now if the writing was in place on the inspection prior to the finding of the apron,and the killer is resposible for both,it could raise interesting questions.
What were the "Annual practices" I ask because of this item. "He read from page 934 of 'Annual Practices for 1892',as follows" The item was raised during a court case.It was about proceedure.

[JeffHamm]

The doctor simply gave an opinion.

Try an experiment dip both your hands in a tin of red paint and then try to pick up a white cloth and wipe you hands without getting paint on both sides.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

I can certainly do that, all depends upon how much paint I have on my hands, how big the cloth is, and how I handle it. You seem to be implying you can't fathom how that could be possible though? I suggest you may gain more than I would if you challenged yourself to do it. I bet, with a little practice as you figure it out, you too will be able to accomplish it. Once you stop thinking it is impossible, and actually consider what is being said, you'll realize it is, in the end, a pretty simple thing to do.

- Jeff

[Wickerman]

The doctor simply gave an opinion.

Try an experiment dip both your hands in a tin of red paint and then try to pick up a white cloth and wipe you hands without getting paint on both sides.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

What makes you think he dipped both hands into her abdomen?
Everywhere we look, we find you've based much of your theory on false assumptions.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The doctor simply gave an opinion.

Try an experiment dip both your hands in a tin of red paint and then try to pick up a white cloth and wipe you hands without getting paint on both sides.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Why couldn’t the killer have wiped his hands on her clothing but took a piece of cloth away so that he could check himself over away from the scene of the crime and in better light?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I thought for a moment you were suggesting that Jack crapped himself!

Don’t give out ideas for theories Joshua

. Intereting you should say that, I was reading about the road surfaces of victorian London only yesterday

I’ve heard of some pretty obscure books in my time but I’ve never seen a copy of “British Road Surfaces Of The Victorian Era” Joshua? A bit of a ‘page turner’ no doubt.

[Trevor Marriott]

No reason at all. It's been suggested before, I think by you, and it puts the lie to the claim that blood on one side is somehow a deciding factor that rules out wiping his hands or knife on it, despite the doctors who actually saw it telling us that is what it looked like and they were not shocked beyond belief to see such a miracle.

- Jeff

The doctor simply gave an opinion.

Try an experiment dip both your hands in a tin of red paint and then try to pick up a white cloth and wipe you hands without getting paint on both sides.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Joshua Rogan]

Ok, I’ll throw one out there just for the sake if it. Can we be 100% that the faeces was Catherine’s? If he took the cloth away so that after leaving Mitre Square he could give himself a quick check and wipe when he neared a lamp then maybe as he was wiping some blood from his trousers he noticed that he must have knelt in something in Mitre Square. So he wiped off blood and s**t at the same time?

I await the onslaught.

I thought for a moment you were suggesting that Jack crapped himself!