The Goulston Street Apron

[hill806]

I still wonder why he took the organs in the first place..i still wonder if its possible that the killer was an insane cannibal. (possibly Jacob Levy) the insane butcher. If he was a cannibal then i doubt he would wrap them up in a rag with feces on it. However the killer having a cannibalistic motive is meerly a theory that may be true...but probably unlikely. If he was an inteligent killer, then i doubt he would leave the rag near to where he lived or in a jewish community. I also do not beleve the killer wasted time writing pointless scribble on a wall knowing that police were hunting him.

[Wickerman]

Assuming that both copied the original, rather than one officer copying the note made by the other.

Hi Colin.

"...The inspector made the remark that on the wall the word was "Jeuws." Witness entered in his book what he believed was an exact copy of the words."
The Times.

What I was meaning was, PC Long saw the original, and while there he made a copy in his notebook, the Inspector who was also present commented on the wording written by PC Long.
So, this implies the Inspector confirmed what PC Long wrote.

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Hullo hill806.

Yeah id say it is worth the effort and if nothing came from it then at leist it could be ruled out. Now regardless of the fact it was completly dark or just quite dark, he could have still cut himself if he was working quickly and frantically, especially if only an hour ago he had killed stride and wasnt able to finish. He also possibly nearly got caught and he knew police were still out after him. He may have still cut the piece of apron larger because he was hurrying, or just because he would wrap it around his cut a good few times. Anyway i think the killer would have blended in with the shadows, possibly wearing a dark coat, thus the reason no1 saw any blood on him and i personally imagined he would just shove the organs in his pockets of the coat.

So, a killer who went to the trouble of limiting the amount of blood he had to deal with is just going to stuff bloody, still oozing blood perhaps, organs in his pockets? A killer who avoids blood, kills almost silently, and is always a step ahead, just crams organs in his pockets. Something seems incongruent about that. But hell, I think it a good possibility the guy wore gloves so... It just hit me. "JTR" exhibits many of the same symptoms that ninjas do. Now there's s fresh idea for a book.

[hill806]

The fact he diddnt have much blood on him was probably due to the way in which he killed them. I beleve he acted as a paying customer, they lead the killer to a secluded corner, then SUDDENLY he struck, when they diddnt expect it, which in most cases would explain the lack of bruises (aprart from the throat) that would indicated a struggle. He would strangle them, then lay them down gently, then cut their throat, then get to work, he would have avoided alot of blood that way. If the killer was a butcher he MAY have brought his own butchers apron which he quickly got into, and its possible the apron had a front pocket for the organs..though that is just speculating. In most cases the streets were dimly lit and if the killer has simply brough a dark coat with him he may have simply took it off why he did the deed, then put it back on again to cover any bood. An organised inteligent killer wouldnt have needed to waste time cutting up apron for the organs, they would have thought ahead and simply brought their own garments for the organs....that is if the killer was as organised as a possibly ninja. Its possibly the killer may have brought a seperate rag for the organs..wrapped them up..then cut his hand...darn..nothing left for my hand..so then he had to cut away at her apron quickly.

[Trevor Marriott]

I even emailed trevor marriot the other week with the query regarding the fact he may have used the apron for a cut hand and potentially went to seek medical attention shortly after. He replied with this...

Thank you for taking the time to reply.

I would like to explain briefly where I now stand with this investigation and the issues you have highlighted.

First of all my research tends to show that perhaps the killer did not cut or tear the apron piece and that at some point before her death Eddowes was simply in possession of two old pieces of white apron. One of which she could have deposited herself under the archway
before her death after leaving the police station.

You are quite right to question the issues surrounding the killer cutting it for wiping his knife or for taking the organs away in. Personally i do not believe the killer removed the organs from any of the victims at the crime scene. And I dont subscribe to your view.

I have a new book coming out in kindle form only at the beginning of September in that can be found all my latest research and conclusions on the whole mystery.

I have no idea if Feigenbaum carried a scar

I will forward you details in due course.

Regards
Trevor Marriott


I personally think Trevor Marriott's ideas are "respectfully" proposterous!! But anyway.

Kettle calling the pot black and I didn't give you permission to print my e mail to you.

[The Good Michael]

I even emailed trevor marriot the other week with the query regarding the fact he may have used the apron for a cut hand and potentially went to seek medical attention shortly after. He replied with this...

Thank you for taking the time to reply.

I would like to explain briefly where I now stand with this investigation and the issues you have highlighted.

First of all my research tends to show that perhaps the killer did not cut or tear the apron piece and that at some point before her death Eddowes was simply in possession of two old pieces of white apron. One of which she could have deposited herself under the archway
before her death after leaving the police station.

You are quite right to question the issues surrounding the killer cutting it for wiping his knife or for taking the organs away in. Personally i do not believe the killer removed the organs from any of the victims at the crime scene. And I dont subscribe to your view.

I have a new book coming out in kindle form only at the beginning of September in that can be found all my latest research and conclusions on the whole mystery.

I have no idea if Feigenbaum carried a scar

I will forward you details in due course.

Regards
Trevor Marriott


I personally think Trevor Marriott's ideas are "respectfully" proposterous!! But anyway.

Bad etiquette! You don't post private emails here. It just isn't done.

Mike

[pinkmoon]

questioning the so called facts

All Trevor Marriott is doing is challenging the so called facts nothing wrong with that to many people interested in this case have a closed mind to this.To much has been made of the goulston street graffiti and the letters sent to the police .Like I've said before if the killer was going to chalk a message on a wall just after a murder surely to God he would leave no doubt it was from him .Our killer has decided to start writing to the police so why didn't he make sure they can be no doubt that the letters are from the killer it wouldn't have been to hard.As for the organ removal it is good that Trevor challenges this he might be right and if he is it certainly puts a big question mark over what we have believed for years

[Jon Guy]

Hi Pinkmoon

Indeed, we all love Trevor you know, and it`s good practise for his theory to be put under close scrutiny on the message boards, as has been done.

All Trevor Marriott is doing is challenging the so called facts nothing wrong with that to many people interested in this case have a closed mind to this.

If having a closed mind means not been persuaded by his theory, then yes.
Most will have their own theories based on what evidence we do have and obviously need a bit more persuasion in changing their views.

Like I've said before if the killer was going to chalk a message on a wall just after a murder surely to God he would leave no doubt it was from him .

You mean, like a bloodied piece of a victim`s clothing lying below it?

[pinkmoon]

the message

Our killer has just killed one women possibly two in a very short space of time stops to chalk a message on the wall having of course going to the trouble to take some chalk with him to write the message so this message must be important to him.Surely to God he would write something about his latest murders just to prove message was genuine.A rag under a message that makes no sense isn't going to prove that message is genuine.

[Jon Guy]

You`re assuming the GSG was written by the killer.

Killing people makes no sense whatsover either, and if it was Eddowes killer who wrote the message, you have to remember that he was a nut of the highest order and had been rummaging around inside someone`s tummy only an hour or so earlier.

[pinkmoon]

Yes I have never believed the message was work of the killer for the simply fact if he had gone prepared to write it than write something that proves its genuine

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Hullo pinkmoon.

Yes I have never believed the message was work of the killer for the simply fact if he had gone prepared to write it than write something that proves its genuine

So, the message is more likely to have not been written by the killer because it fails to satisfy authenticity to the reader?

[Abby Normal]

Yes I have never believed the message was work of the killer for the simply fact if he had gone prepared to write it than write something that proves its genuine

Hi PM
Maybe to the killer it was obvious in his mind that the message (along with the apron) was from him.

Or perhaps he wanted it to be ambiguous.

What you or anyone else thinks he "should" have done is meaningless really.
Post mortem serial killers are unusual creatures.

[pinkmoon]

By taking chalk with him the killer obviously has planned to write a message so this must have been important to him.Why not write message nearer to victim also make it clear in the message that it is from him it wouldn't have been that hard to do this.If the police really thought this message was genuine then why did they erase it it makes no sense.I believed that message was genuine for years it adds a nice bit of drama and mystery to the whole case but when you start to ask the question why write anything it makes no sense

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Hullo pinkmoon.

By taking chalk with him the killer obviously has planned to write a message

Okay fair enough.

so this must have been important to him.

Why must it? Could it not simply have been a lark or to cause confusion?
Why not write message nearer to victim also make it clear in the message that it is from him it wouldn't have been that hard to do this

Because it might of been much riskier to do so. Why would the killer feel oblidged to do anyone any favours? Agreed it would've been pure simplicity to make it crystal clear. One more thing to curse him for.
.If the police really thought this message was genuine then why did they erase it it makes no sense.

I believed that message was genuine for years it adds a nice bit of drama and mystery to the whole case but when you start to ask the question why write anything it makes no sense

It is peculiar indeed. But why not write something ambiguous? Because it might benefit the readers.