Piece of Apron and the 'Juwes'

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

I think u could be correct Capn Jack although I believe that it is a point that should be answered. Maybe not the most important question but I still believe that it should be answered. I think u hit it on the head when u said he took it to wipe his hands. That would make sense rather than taking it to wipe his knife; so that is probably what happened. Jack killed and mutilated her, then discovered his hands were so dirty that he couldn't wipe them on her clothes so he wiped his knife there, took part of the apron and wiped his hands on Goulston street. What do u think?

Wouldn't it be me and not Capt'n Jack you should address here?

In any case, yes that scenario sounds very plausible to me and fits well with the few facts we have. I like that interpretation.

All the best

[downonwhores]

Apron

I think u could be correct Capn Jack although I believe that it is a point that should be answered. Maybe not the most important question but I still believe that it should be answered. I think u hit it on the head when u said he took it to wipe his hands. That would make sense rather than taking it to wipe his knife; so that is probably what happened. Jack killed and mutilated her, then discovered his hands were so dirty that he couldn't wipe them on her clothes so he wiped his knife there, took part of the apron and wiped his hands on Goulston street. What do u think?

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

If Jack the Ripper took the apron which I think he did, then why did he just take it to wipe the blood off? He could have cleaned his knife on her clothes. Some people said that he was in a hurry to clean up, but he had time enough to cut and rip off the apron which would take longer than wiping the knife right then and there.
My theory is that Jack took the apron in order to prove to the police that he was the one who actually wrote the graffiti by laying a piece of evidence close by. Any opinions?

Hi and welcome to the Boards,
Well, according to statements at the time, it appeard as if there were traces of someone having wiped off something on the apron (the police probably concluded this from the shape of the smeared marks). So regardless of he intended to do other things with it, it appears that he did use it to wipe off either his hands or his knife.
The piece from the apron apron didn't only contain blood but also faecal matter and excrement, so it's quite possible that the mutilations on Eddowes were messier than the others, who knows. Why he chose not to use her clothes on the scene instead of cutting of the apron is of course a valid question, but I don't see it as a major problem.

All the best

[downonwhores]

agree

I agree with cap. jack. The graffiti was clearly recently written as older graffiti would have been smudged or rubbed out especially if it was chalk. I think the neatness and the freshness of the graffiti shows that it was more than likely written that night. As for the writer, I think it was Jack because it was found close to the apron. Jack didn't need to take the apron to wipe off his knife when it would have been easier and faster to wipe off his knife at the scene of the crime than to cut and tear off a piece of cloth apron.

[Cap'n Jack]

Why did young Ms. Dyer chalk strange 'marks' on the pavement outside of her home when she went on her murder spree?
To implicate others in her crimes.
Your conclusions, Glenn, carry the almighty weight of a sparrow's fart.

[downonwhores]

apron

If Jack the Ripper took the apron which I think he did, then why did he just take it to wipe the blood off? He could have cleaned his knife on her clothes. Some people said that he was in a hurry to clean up, but he had time enough to cut and rip off the apron which would take longer than wiping the knife right then and there.
My theory is that Jack took the apron in order to prove to the police that he was the one who actually wrote the graffiti by laying a piece of evidence close by. Any opinions?

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

On the other hand,I dont reckon the ripper was "over endowed" with "common sense" Glenn.Nothing he ever did can be reasonably worked out using the rules of "common sense"------------so why should standing by a bloody piece of apron ,in a doorway ,with a piece of chalk in his hand, writing ever such a neat piece of nonsense----that may have meant a lot to his way of thinking and nothing at all to us be strange?

Hi Natalie,

I have never bought that kind of argument, because with that you can 'explain' anything and support the weirdest scenarios.
It just won't do, as far as I am concerned

He may have been a wacko, but that doesn't explain why he takes the time to scribble it in a neat schoolboy's hand and with small letters while leaving a crime scene instead of blurting it out when he had the chance. Nor do I understand the point in blaming te Jews if he wanted to make a mark and 'sign' his latest crime. The writing appear to be anti-Jewish but that's about it. Needless to say, such writings would hardly be surprising in such a densed populated Jewish area with high antisemtic tension.
Since there is absolutely nothing in the content of the writing that even as much as points towards a crime of any kind, I conclude that it was a mere coincdence and that the writing was already there when he dropped the apron.

All the best

[joelhall]

then again as far as other messages go, why would there need to be ohers? each of these murders becomes unique so why should there be a precedent?

[Natalie Severn]

I can see that, Natalie, he's just slaughtered some poor women, but forgets that in an instant, gets the chalk out of his pocket which he marks the tea boxes with, and writes himself a little message.
How the **** do you spell Jews?
Lucky that he has an apron with him to rub out the spellling mistakes.

Absolutely---AP,and jokes aside that is just how he could have been thinking---no rhyme or reason to those events for those living in the real world----but plenty in his own head.

[joelhall]

Hi Joel,
The thing about Mary Kelly is that whoever committed that murder,and I think it was certainly the Ripper myself,was very very busy performing a very " concentrated" operation.

could you explain what you mean by concentrated? just want to make sure were understanding each other right

joel

[Natalie Severn]

A good theory Dan---

[Cap'n Jack]

I can see that, Natalie, he's just slaughtered some poor women, but forgets that in an instant, gets the chalk out of his pocket which he marks the tea boxes with, and writes himself a little message.
How the **** do you spell Jews?
Lucky that he has an apron with him to rub out the spellling mistakes.

[Natalie Severn]

true, but of course the body wouldnt just be noticed by police.

the fact is that if the message were intended for them there, why not write it by the body.

if we take the kelly murder, he was inside - why no message at the scene. the mutilations themselves show there was time.

we dont of course have evidence of other messages. but given the location it may have been intended for someone else, without trying to alert the authorities to his motive.

its plausible other messages may have been left and not noticed or even not reported through fear. just as its possible that the killer may have dropped the bloody rag by accident whilst writing and had to leg it before he had a chance to pick it up.

Hi Joel,
The thing about Mary Kelly is that whoever committed that murder,and I think it was certainly the Ripper myself,was very very busy performing a very " concentrated" operation.It may in fact have b een the only time the ripper completely "lost himself" in his "work".When he woke from his reverie, he may have had only one thought in his mind----how to get the hell out of there!
In Goulston Street, the murders were over---he had escaped the law,or from Mitre square anyway ,he had a few minutes to savour the event and communicate......

[Natalie Severn]

Colin,

Personally, I am surprised that you of all people actually consider the possibility that the writing to have been made by the killer.
Yes, of course somebody must have written it.
But why the Ripper? Only because he was there? Or because someone had to be writing it? What kind of reasoning is that?

The only reason to ever suspect that the writing had any connection with the killings is the placing of the apron. Besides that there is not one word in its content that points in that direction!!!!! It can never be pointed out enough.

To compare the reasoning with the nicks on Eddowes face is just silly, because it is only sensible and obvious to assume that the same man who hacked and opened up her body also did the nicks in the face. You can't apply that same reasoning to the writing, based on the sole argument that 'we knew he was there' or that 'someone' wrote it. It was a building block full of occupants, the site lay in the middle of a very busy hawking industry and no doubt many people passed through and lived there on a daily basis. What does that prove? We can't even be certain of when the writing was made. It is more likely that that 'someone' was someone other than the Ripper.

Indeed, we can't KNOW if the Ripper wrote the message on Goulston Street, but I find it hardly unlikely that he did and to me it just doesn't make sense.
As for the arguments against him writing it being unconvincing, I certainly don't agree. On the contrary, they are based on pure common sense.

All the best

On the other hand,I dont reckon the ripper was "over endowed" with "common sense" Glenn.Nothing he ever did can be reasonably worked out using the rules of "common sense"------------so why should standing by a bloody piece of apron ,in a doorway ,with a piece of chalk in his hand, writing ever such a neat piece of nonsense----that may have meant a lot to his way of thinking and nothing at all to us be strange?Everything he did was "strange" come to that,so why not the graffiti found directly above an apron piece,proven to have come from his very own handiwork?
Cheers Glenn,
Norma

[Sam Flynn]

Hello Observer,

A different story emerges however when an author researches the culprit. Have a look at any of the books devoted to individuals who have been found to be serial killer's, I think you'll find they do display certain traits that could not be described as normal.

I'm aware of that, which is why the first half of your post is the important factor to consider:

You know when a serial killer is caught there seems to be any amount of people who come forward and declare to the press "Good heavens he seemed such a nice person, I'd never have guessed he was a serial killer".

...it is this, the overtly "normal" persona, that usually presents itself to the public and it is this sort of person which, all things being equal, we might expect to find in Jack the Ripper. That's not to say that he was, but the days when it was thought that the stereotypical lunatic somehow qualified as a "better" suspect should have disappeared long ago.