Piece of Apron and the 'Juwes'

[Monty]

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!

I dont think it is the most likely however, you are both correct. Most likely is the best we can do right now.

Monty

[DVV]

Hello Joelhall,
You believe the graffito to be from the Ripper (a view I tend to share), then you say you don't see why the Ripper did so, as if what you consider to be a clue were of no help at all.
But why that?
I think more problematic the time the graffito has been chalked (that's why I still entertain doubts about it, though I favour your view, as I said), for example.
But since you accept it as written by the killer, then you obtain a certain benefit: the GSG obviously shows some possible aspects of JtR personnality.
Jack coulb be whether an ordinary anti-Semite, or, as long since suggested, a Jew who "boasted at it " with perversity.
In any case, there would be something wrong about the Jews in his mind.
I would add that the alledged style of the handwriting, the way the sentence sounds, etc, do not match the "Dear Boss" correspondance.
So the acceptance or not of the GSG as a clue do have influence on the general view of the case.

Amitiés,
David (broken-English poster)

[joelhall]

Hello Joelhall,
You believe the graffito to be from the Ripper (a view I tend to share), then you say you don't see why the Ripper did so, as if what you consider to be a clue were of no help at all.
But why that?
I think more problematic the time the graffito has been chalked (that's why I still entertain doubts about it, though I favour your view, as I said), for example.
But since you accept it as written by the killer, then you obtain a certain benefit: the GSG obviously shows some possible aspects of JtR personnality.
Jack coulb be whether an ordinary anti-Semite, or, as long since suggested, a Jew who "boasted at it " with perversity.
In any case, there would be something wrong about the Jews in his mind.
I would add that the alledged style of the handwriting, the way the sentence sounds, etc, do not match the "Dear Boss" correspondance.
So the acceptance or not of the GSG as a clue do have influence on the general view of the case.

Amitiés,
David (broken-English poster)

hey david,

just thought it useful to clarify my own beliefs...

personally, i dont believe either way whether the killer wrote it or not, nor whether it has any connection at all. i have not seen evidence either way as yet which is anything more than circumstantial or supposition.

however, my arguements are due in this instance, that i prefer to err on the side of caution when simply dismissing anything which shows a prima facie reason for being noted by the original detectives.

indeed, the only events in the case i am anywhere near certain of is that several women were murdered in east london. until any missing evidence resurfaces, or other overlooked information possibly comes to light all i can do is give educated guesses for the most part. while i see equal possibilities/probabilities on a certain issue i cannot make up my mind up until i have exhausted all avenues, as i believe firstly that this clouds judgement of later information (beliefs are difficult to change), and secondly theres the danger that this carries over and stops you viewing other aspects with an open mind.

i debate others points purely to give some food for thought. others may, after pondering these points and weighing up probabilities, decide on a most likely theory which suits them. some merely have a closed mind, or such longly held beliefs that they dont consider other views as possible. but ive not yet seen anything to convince me that either arguement is the more probable.

joel

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

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

My problem with that is that this would in such case mean that the killer's address was Goulston Street.
If he needed the piece of apron to carry the organs, then why did he suddenly get rid of it? Doesn't make sense to me.

All the best

[Dan Norder]

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

If he wasn't worried about someone walking by at any time and catching him over a dead body, maybe. As it was he was lucky to be able to get away with what he was able to do in Mitre Square.

[joelhall]

My problem with that is that this would in such case mean that the killer's address was Goulston Street.
If he needed the piece of apron to carry the organs, then why did he suddenly get rid of it? Doesn't make sense to me.

All the best

in fairness, it doesnt seem likely hed flee a crime scene through streets, wiping blood and s**t off his hands and think it wouldnt arouse suspicion. it certainly doesnt mean he lived in goulston street (i find this reasoning confusing), as why would he ditch the rag outside if he used it to transport the organs all the way home?

certainly, why would he leave it where he lived? extremely stupid mistake. if he was that desperate to get caught hed never have legged it in the first place!

as mentioned this could be deliberately placed there due to the writing, or that the blood had fully saturated so he ditched it before it soaked through.

there is an alternate that he cut off the piece to handle the body, so as not to get the blood and faeces all over his hands, and had to escape quick not having a chance to drop it, though this is less likely.

[Sam Flynn]

in fairness, it doesnt seem likely hed flee a crime scene through streets, wiping blood and s**t off his hands and think it wouldnt arouse suspicion.

Perhaps not, Joel. In fact, I tend to agree with you.

It's worth reflecting that one of the distinguishing factors in the Eddowes murder is that a section of her colon was removed and that the killer had smeared fæcal matter all over her (externalised) intestines. In short, it is the only crime in the series where it's practically a certainty that he got excrement on at least one of his hands. Sufficient excrement, in fact, to have "painted" the surface of Eddowes' intestines and to have smeared the piece of apron he'd removed.

My explanation for this is that the contents of Eddowes' severed colon spilled onto his hands, and had to get rid of it somehow. To my mind, he evidently tried to remove the bulk of it by swishing his hand in the slime of his victim's entrails, but that did not prove good enough. Clearly, not all the incriminating material could be removed by this method, and time was pressing.

From that, I conclude that he used the apron-piece as an improvised glove. Thus equipped, he could tuck his soiled hand out of sight whilst he fled through the streets, without contaminating his pocket with excrement. Once he'd got a safe distance away from the Square he could jettison the rag, after perhaps wiping off a little more of the offending matter, whilst he ducked out of sight in the Goulston Street doorway.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

It's worth reflecting that one of the distinguishing factors in the Eddowes murder is that a section of her colon was removed and that the killer had smeared fæcal matter all over her (externalised) intestines. In short, it is the only crime in the series where it's practically a certainty that he got excrement on at least one of his hands. Sufficient excrement, in fact, to have "painted" the surface of Eddowes' intestines and to have smeared the piece of apron he'd removed.

My explanation for this is that the contents of Eddowes' severed colon spilled onto his hands, and had to get rid of it somehow. To my mind, he evidently tried to remove the bulk of it by swishing his hand in the slime of his victim's entrails, but that did not prove good enough. Clearly, not all the incriminating material could be removed by this method, and time was pressing.

From that, I conclude that he used the apron-piece as an improvised glove. Thus equipped, he could tuck his soiled hand out of sight whilst he fled through the streets, without contaminating his pocket with excrement. Once he'd got a safe distance away from the Square he could jettison the rag, after perhaps wiping off a little more of the offending matter, whilst he ducked out of sight in the Goulston Street doorway.

Quite a clever suggestion, Sam. Probably the best I've heard so far.

All the best

[c.d.]

Quite a clever suggestion, Sam. Probably the best I've heard so far.

All the best

Yeah, but just wait. Someone will pooh pooh it.

c.d.

[Sam Flynn]

Yeah, but just wait. Someone will pooh pooh it.

...or mount a smear campaign.

Thanks for the support, though, CD Ditto for the kind words, Glenn.

[Cap'n Jack]

I like all this speculation, but is it not true to suggest that the reason the killer split or ripped the apron was to gain access to the pockets in which the prostitutes of the LVP kept their valuables?
And when he didn't find any, 'cos the police had already emptied her pockets, he walked away with the portion just in case there was a polished farthing in there, and threw it away when there wasn't, crouched down and told the world that it was the Juwes that did it.
Imagine ripping a woman open who has an apron across her belly?
It's going to get ripped isn't it?
I just read through five cases at the Old Bailey where murderers wiped their weapons on the aprons of their victims.

[Jon Guy]

...or mount a smear campaign.

Thanks for the support, though, CD Ditto for the kind words, Glenn.

Very clever indeed, Sam, probably number two on my list of plausible explanations.

I just don`t see the problem with him wiping his hands clean on the layers of cloth that lay before him ?

[joelhall]

I just read through five cases at the Old Bailey where murderers wiped their weapons on the aprons of their victims.

and did they take an improvised sheath with them?

or try to clean their weapon by wiping it on someones insides?

this does sound a little far-fetched.

guess ill do the pooh-poohing because the first thing someone would likely do with this on their hand would be the quickest way of removal... using the victims clothes as a cloth straight away, rather than cutting some off. if this were the case hed most likely have cleaned it off and ditched the rag straight away.

[Sam Flynn]

Very clever indeed, Sam, probably number two on my list of plausible explanations.

"Number two" - another pun?

I just don`t see the problem with him wiping his hands clean on the layers of cloth that lay before him ?

Time pressure, and the "crunch... crunch" of an approaching bobby's boots, perhaps. Under such circumstances, I can imagine Jack, realising that the vile ooze clinging to his fingers would need more than a few swipes to remove, decided to cut - the apron - and run.

[c.d.]

Hi Sam,

You best be prepared to defend your theory. You don't want to be caught with your pants down.

c.d.