From Mitre Square to Goulston Street - Some thoughts.

[Fleetwood Mac]

I would be interested to hear an actual motive for cutting the apron in two, carrying it so far, and then discarding it, apparently about an hour after the murder, at the entrance to a building inhabited almost entirely by Jews.

Well, there's a principle that governs all human actions: the principal of least effort to accomplish a task. It is bound up with rational choice.

There is rational choice in moving away from a crime scene, stopping to get yourself together, discarding what you don't feel you need anymore; and then walking on in a more composed fashion. Providing there is not a search going on around you at that point.

There is no rational choice in committing a murder, for which you will hang, escaping from the crime scene; and then returning to a street somewhere in the region of 5 to 10 minutes from the crime scene at a time when you know there will be a search going on (supposedly returning somewhere between 40 minutes and 75 minutes after the crime).

It's not sufficient to claim "we can't know" because it's a serial killer.

Very, very few serial killers display evidence of psychosis when monitored and observed after they have been apprehended. And, these sorts of murders are committed for psychological, ephemeral pleasure. These people remain governed by rational choice as we all do. There is definitely something wrong with them and they're not normal, but that doesn't mean they're stark raving mad and have lost all human instinct.

The studies of these people conclude that serial killers share common traits and behaviours, and as such we can get an idea of what drove this man and what his behaviour was likely to be.

One thing that is common among serial killers, is that they like to go back to the scene of the crime to relive the experience. That wouldn't include dropping an apron 5 or 10 minutes away, mind you. In the event he did go back to the crime scene, which according to studies isn't out of the ordinary for them, then you'd have to assume it wasn't at the time when the police were there and there was a search going on: rational choice.

[Trevor Marriott]

He didn't.

Human beings have night vision. Providing there is some light source, our eyes adjust to darkness. There were two lamps in Mitre Square, admittedly in the northern part of the square and I believe the lamps we're talking about didn't give a great deal of light off at all. Still, that's a light source for human eyes to work with.

The only place where a human being would not be able to see due to darkness, is deep in a cave or somewhere like that where there is no light whatsoever.

And, we're not talking about being able to see down the street: we're talking about right in front of him.

And then, we have the opinion of Dr Sequeira, who wasn't surprised that the crime could be accomplished in that part of the square and at that time of the morning.

Dr Sequira could only have been referring to the murder and the mutilations when he mentions three minutes!!!!!!!!!!!!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fleetwood Mac]

Clearly you misunderstood my point. If there was enough light in Mitre Square to extract a kidney then there was enough light at Goulston Street to chalk a message on the wall. One was not more lit or darker than the other. The apron wasn’t found deep inside a cave. Just inside from the street.

You can choose to believe whatever you want but the argument the murderer couldn’t have written the message because it was too dark is not accurate or true. It doesn’t stand up as an argument.

Clearly, your understanding of the word 'clearly' leaves a bit to be desired. I didn't misunderstand. I was replying only to the Ripper extracted a kidney in almost pitch-black darkness part of your post, which should have been evident.

With regard to the other part of your post, I agree, it wasn't too dark to write the message; although I've no idea who said otherwise.

[erobitha]

Clearly not. The reason being: nowhere did I state that.

As far as I'm concerned the WM wasn't the author of the scrawl on the wall, and so that part is all academic.

Clearly you misunderstood my point. If there was enough light in Mitre Square to extract a kidney then there was enough light at Goulston Street to chalk a message on the wall. One was not more lit or darker than the other. The apron wasn’t found deep inside a cave. Just inside from the street.

You can choose to believe whatever you want but the argument the murderer couldn’t have written the message because it was too dark is not accurate or true. It doesn’t stand up as an argument.

[Fleetwood Mac]

So Wentworth Buildings was pitch black and Mitre Square wasn't is that what you are saying?

Clearly not. The reason being: nowhere did I state that.

As far as I'm concerned the WM wasn't the author of the scrawl on the wall, and so that part is all academic.

[erobitha]

He didn't.

Human beings have night vision. Providing there is some light source, our eyes adjust to darkness. There were two lamps in Mitre Square, admittedly in the northern part of the square and I believe the lamps we're talking about didn't give a great deal of light off at all. Still, that's a light source for human eyes to work with.

The only place where a human being would not be able to see due to darkness, is deep in a cave or somewhere like that where there is no light whatsoever.

And, we're not talking about being able to see down the street: we're talking about right in front of him.

And then, we have the opinion of Dr Sequeira, who wasn't surprised that the crime could be accomplished in that part of the square and at that time of the morning.

So Wentworth Buildings was pitch black and Mitre Square wasn't is that what you are saying?

[Fleetwood Mac]

The Ripper extracted a kidney in almost pitch-black darkness

He didn't.

Human beings have night vision. Providing there is some light source, our eyes adjust to darkness. There were two lamps in Mitre Square, admittedly in the northern part of the square and I believe the lamps we're talking about didn't give a great deal of light off at all. Still, that's a light source for human eyes to work with.

The only place where a human being would not be able to see due to darkness, is deep in a cave or somewhere like that where there is no light whatsoever.

And, we're not talking about being able to see down the street: we're talking about right in front of him.

And then, we have the opinion of Dr Sequeira, who wasn't surprised that the crime could be accomplished in that part of the square and at that time of the morning.

[erobitha]

The Ripper extracted a kidney in almost pitch-black darkness, yet some on this thread thought it was far too dark for him to write a message on a wall in chalk.

It might be something to ponder.

[Trevor Marriott]

You're making an assumption again, Warren didn't say she was wearing the bib, he said the apron had a bib - it being a bib-type apron.

It may have been tied around her neck, or may have been tucked down behind the waist band. The bib portion is square and would look like a large handkerchief, or a rag the same size as a handkerchief.
One such article is listed among her possessions (13th item) - "1 Large White Handkerchief, blood stained", interestingly, the Evening News lists this same item as "..large white handkerchief round neck..".
So it was on the body still around the neck and assumed to be a handkerchief.

Oh come on there is a big difference between a handkerchief and a bib apron

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

There is evidence if the From Hell letter is genuine.

I wonder why Wickerman did not think of that.

[Fiver]

I meant that you are assuming that the murderer took Eddowes' kidney and uterus with the intention of eating them.

There is no evidence that the Whitechapel Murderer was a cannibal.

There is evidence if the From Hell letter is genuine.

[Fiver]

Are you not making an assumption?

If you believe the From Hell letter is genuine, then it's not an assumption.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

What evidence would you expect?

One cannot assume that he was a cannibal on the ground that one cannot expect to see evidence that he was one.

[Wickerman]

Yet again the evidential merry-go-round trundles on I wish I had a pound for every time this same topic has been discussed

If she had been wearing a bib apron then the top half around her neck would have still been in situ..

You're making an assumption again, Warren didn't say she was wearing the bib, he said the apron had a bib - it being a bib-type apron.

It may have been tied around her neck, or may have been tucked down behind the waist band. The bib portion is square and would look like a large handkerchief, or a rag the same size as a handkerchief.
One such article is listed among her possessions (13th item) - "1 Large White Handkerchief, blood stained", interestingly, the Evening News lists this same item as "..large white handkerchief round neck..".
So it was on the body still around the neck and assumed to be a handkerchief.

[Wickerman]

I meant that you are assuming that the murderer took Eddowes' kidney and uterus with the intention of eating them.

There is no evidence that the Whitechapel Murderer was a cannibal.

What evidence would you expect?