Piece of Apron and the 'Juwes'

[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]

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?

[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

[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?

[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]

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.

[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]

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]

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

sorry Glenn,

I was reading capn jacks thread while I was writing. Yes, Glenn, I think that your first thread was really head on and capn jacks was off the wall so to speak. I recently read a book where it said that she tore off her own apron and used it as "tissue" for her menstral cycle and threw it away herself there before she was murdered which is why it was covered with execrement and blood and that the blood was menstral blood. I forgot which book but what do u think about that theory? I admit that it is possible but I totally disagree with it on one reason: She wouldn't have thrown it away. She was poor and would have kept it and hand-washed it. But anyway, thanks for the encouragement. Sorry about the mix up.

[MrRippel]

The conclusion I lean toward is that the Ripper had heard that he had left a message at the Chapman crime scene, but of course he hadn't. He also knew that chalk writing had just recently popped up threatening another murder. He also heard in the papers that he was supposedly a Jew, and that he supposedly already mutilated the face of a woman who was killed in another town completely. Then the next night of a Ripper murder he does mutilate a woman's face, and a chalk message is found with evidence from that crime scene right by it, and that message is saying that the Jews aren't to blame for nothin'. Seems like an attempt to be very direct in his message.

If the gsg was supposed to be a statement from JTR, wouldnt he do the writing at the actual crime scene?

[Ben]

I tend to agree with Dan's suggestion.

If the papers were already calling Jack a Jew, there was an obvious advantage of keeping that notion alive if he had an opportunity to do so, especially if he was not a Jew. When suspicions began to circulate that the Ipswith killer may have been a religious fanatic, he started to pose his victims in the style of the crucifix, not because he started to believe he was a religious fanatic, but because false rumour had provided him with an opportunity to direct investigative focus in that false direction.

Best regards,
Ben

[joelhall]

personally i think the piece of apron was used to wrap the organs so the killer wouldnt arouse suspicion or get covered in blood and faeces.

seems the most likely reason.

joel

[Ben]

Yes, I agree with that, Joel. Seems most likely to me, too.

What tends to infuriate me about these discussions at times is that people are so entrenched in their version of events that they come up with some of the silliest, most niggling reasons for dismissing alternatives.

"Seems the most likely" is the best one can do!

[joelhall]

Yes, I agree with that, Joel. Seems most likely to me, too.

What tends to infuriate me about these discussions at times is that people are so entrenched in their version of events that they come up with some of the silliest, most niggling reasons for dismissing alternatives.

"Seems the most likely" is the best one can do!

im with you on that

joel