Perhaps you might want to read this and then take the blinkers off?
I have said before that the apron in my opinion is of very little evidential value in the grand scheme of things. BUt when you look at the four reasons that have been given by researches over the years for the killer supposedly cutting or tearing the apron piece they simply dont stand up to close scrutiny.
I would like to make a few comments here if you donīt mind.
I have no problem with your theory even though I do not think that it is correct.
Anyway, you say here that there are four reasons given by researches for the killer supposedly cutting or tearing the apron piece and you say that they donīt stand up to close scrutiny.
I do not know what these four reasons are. But I am sure that the reason I have found is not one of them and, more important, that reason does stand up to scrutiny very well indeed.
I am not able to discuss it yet, but just to let you know: there was a very specific motive and that motive was the reason. It is also connected to the GSG which the killer wrote.
If the killer didnt cut it, or tear it for any of those four reasons then why would he bother to cut or tear it at all? There is no logical explanation for this.
Having regards to the question of whether or not she was wearing an apron at the time of her murder comes into play based on Collards lists. If she wasnt wearing an apron then she at some time before her murder was simply in possession of two pieces of old white apron which at some time had been part of a full apron.
The short time the killer had with the victim the position of her clothes when found dont add weight to the killer being able to cut or tear it and take it away.
If that had been the case then following her release from custody it is not known where she went. We know she lived a stones throw from Goulston Street, so it is not beyond the realms of possibility that she decided to make her way home.
If that be the case there are several explanations for her depositing the piece of apron herself.
The first has already been discussed many time but I will go over it again. This is that she could have been using one of the pieces as a sanitary device and discarded it herself when perhaps going under the archway to go to the toilet. You have to remember that the piece was described as smeared or spotted with blood, on one side and also had traces of faecal matter on it, part of it was wet. i know the wetness was described by a witness as being blood but we have to keep an open mind. All of those traces found on the cloth are consistent with the possibility that it had been between her legs as a sanitary device.
The other explanation is that she could have met a punter on her way home and went under the archway to indulge in some sexual activity and then used one of the pieces of apron to wipe herself down and then discard it.
I hope now the blinkers have come off things are much clearer to you, because the mystery of the apron piece is not as clear cut as you and others perceive ?
I really appreciate everything you write here, Trevor, and I think it is very important. Everything you say has an explanation, whatever statement you make. Good critical thinking.
Best wishes, Pierre