The Goulston Street Apron

[packers stem]

I think going back to Simon's initial post the point is not whether the apron was used to carry anything.It was about Henry Matthews looking for an affirmative link between the killer and the GSG..... Cant imagine why he was so concerned about an apparent scribble that had already been successfully removed.... Ho hum

[All4One]

Hi. I have two question regarding two different interpretations towards this scenario I would like you to answer.

1) are you assuming the killer held the apron and knife in his blooded hands, outside of his pockets in public, on show?

2) or are you saying he simply shoved everything into the pockets of whatever he was wearing?

I don't think the killer ever touched the apron. I think Eddowes used it and discared it herself in Goulston Street before she was arrested and before she met Jack. And I don't think he wrote the graffito either. The only significance of the graffito is that it was discovered near a piece of bloody apron that was traced back to Eddowes. If he didn't drop the apron then he didn't write the graffito - QED. And, as I say, Goulston Street is a bit too close to Berner Street for comfort - especially for someone who's just committed murder. I just don't think there's enough tangible evidence here to place Jack in Goulston Street.

Yes, Eddowes did have a dozen other pieces of apron - some of which were 'slightly bloodstained' - about her person that she could have used but who's to say she didn't find or aquire those after she had already cut/torn a piece off her own apron in an emergency? People like her would have carried everything they could on their person, not knowing when they might need it. A bit like people nowadays carrying a pack of tissues in their pocket or handbag even when they don't have a cold.

IMHO

[spyglass]

I don't think the killer ever touched the apron. I think Eddowes used it and discared it herself in Goulston Street before she was arrested and before she met Jack. And I don't think he wrote the graffito either. The only significance of the graffito is that it was discovered near a piece of bloody apron that was traced back to Eddowes. If he didn't drop the apron then he didn't write the graffito - QED. And, as I say, Goulston Street is a bit too close to Berner Street for comfort - especially for someone who's just committed murder. I just don't think there's enough tangible evidence here to place Jack in Goulston Street.

Yes, Eddowes did have a dozen other pieces of apron - some of which were 'slightly bloodstained' - about her person that she could have used but who's to say she didn't find or aquire those after she had already cut/torn a piece off her own apron in an emergency? People like her would have carried everything they could on their person, not knowing when they might need it. A bit like people nowadays carrying a pack of tissues in their pocket or handbag even when they don't have a cold.

IMHO

Hi,
I've often changed my mind on this over the years, but as of the last couple of years, I feel that the GSG is by the killer,
But the only thing that always bothers me is how the killer could be certain that the apron piece would be seen in such a dark place or even noticed at anytime, so with that doubt in mind I always find myself questioning the motives of the policeman who found it all.

Regards

[Wickerman]

But the only thing that always bothers me is how the killer could be certain that the apron piece would be seen in such a dark place or even noticed at anytime,.....

Maybe it only bothers you because you see the white apron as a "red flag", to draw attention to the graffiti.
Perhaps that was not the intention at all.

[curious4]

I don't think the killer ever touched the apron. I think Eddowes used it and discared it herself in Goulston Street before she was arrested and before she met Jack. And I don't think he wrote the graffito either. The only significance of the graffito is that it was discovered near a piece of bloody apron that was traced back to Eddowes. If he didn't drop the apron then he didn't write the graffito - QED. And, as I say, Goulston Street is a bit too close to Berner Street for comfort - especially for someone who's just committed murder. I just don't think there's enough tangible evidence here to place Jack in Goulston Street.

Yes, Eddowes did have a dozen other pieces of apron - some of which were 'slightly bloodstained' - about her person that she could have used but who's to say she didn't find or aquire those after she had already cut/torn a piece off her own apron in an emergency? People like her would have carried everything they could on their person, not knowing when they might need it. A bit like people nowadays carrying a pack of tissues in their pocket or handbag even when they don't have a cold.

IMHO

Hello All4one

Why would she cut off a piece of her apron when she had several other pieces of rag ready to use? How did she cut a piece off? She only had a table knife, which would not be sharp enough. An apron was a badge of respectability for poor women in the East End. Why ruin it? If she needed something in a hurry, why not grab a rag from her "pocket". Much quicker and easier. And if she had cut off a piece of apron for the purpose you mention, why would she immediately throw it away? These rags were washed and reused and would have been tied on in some way (possibly by tucking the ends under the waistband of her skirt).
And just where would she get 12 pieces of stained rag in the middle of the night? She must have had them with her.

Best wishes
C4

[packers stem]

I don't think the killer ever touched the apron. I think Eddowes used it and discared it herself in Goulston Street before she was arrested and before she met Jack. And I don't think he wrote the graffito either. The only significance of the graffito is that it was discovered near a piece of bloody apron that was traced back to Eddowes. If he didn't drop the apron then he didn't write the graffito - QED. And, as I say, Goulston Street is a bit too close to Berner Street for comfort - especially for someone who's just committed murder. I just don't think there's enough tangible evidence here to place Jack in Goulston Street.

Yes, Eddowes did have a dozen other pieces of apron - some of which were 'slightly bloodstained' - about her person that she could have used but who's to say she didn't find or aquire those after she had already cut/torn a piece off her own apron in an emergency? People like her would have carried everything they could on their person, not knowing when they might need it. A bit like people nowadays carrying a pack of tissues in their pocket or handbag even when they don't have a cold.

IMHO

Hi All4one
Makes no sense I'm afraid why the still alive Eddowes would be tearing a piece off her own apron, covered in blood somehow? And dropping it in Goulston Street
Time for a rethink possibly
....and I do wish people would stop calling it graffiti
"it's the Jews what dun it"....it ain't lol

[DJA]

The piece of apron was roughly half, cut diagonally,leaving the other half behind.

[Rosella]

I think the piece of apron was left by the killer. Kate wouldn't have sliced her apron in such a way. Why not fold or bundle the whole apron up and use it? If she had wanted to quickly use the entry to the Wentworth Buildings for toilet purposes and didn't want to use her spare pieces of linen I'm sure there was newly discarded paper of some sort lying about the streets.

[DJA]

I Why not fold or bundle the whole apron up and use it?

Jack might have been using it as a red herring to draw attention away from Mitre Square and towards the slum area.

Hence he left half behind.

The largest diagonal cut possible to the apron tells us that it was no "accident".

[curious4]

Jack might have been using it as a red herring to draw attention away from Mitre Square and towards the slum area.

Hence he left half behind.

The largest diagonal cut possible to the apron tells us that it was no "accident".

Hello DJA

For once I agree with you :-).

Best wishes
C4

[packers stem]

Jack might have been using it as a red herring to draw attention away from Mitre Square and towards the slum area.

Hence he left half behind.

The largest diagonal cut possible to the apron tells us that it was no "accident".

Morning DJA
Unfortunately neither the apron nor the message fit 'comfortably' with 'random jack' theories so some like to ignore
'random jack' would have tossed the rag within yards of mitre square if it was just to wipe his hands on.
It wouldn't just so happen to appear in a doorway with a message above it

[DJA]

Morning DJA
Unfortunately neither the apron nor the message fit 'comfortably' with 'random jack' theories so some like to ignore
'random jack' would have tossed the rag within yards of mitre square if it was just to wipe his hands on.
It wouldn't just so happen to appear in a doorway with a message above it

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steel_square

Don't mention the Juwes.....

[GUT]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steel_square

Don't mention the Juwes.....

I did but I think I got away with it.

[packers stem]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steel_square

Don't mention the Juwes.....

Aww go on....

[RivkahChaya]

Morning DJA
Unfortunately neither the apron nor the message fit 'comfortably' with 'random jack' theories so some like to ignore
'random jack' would have tossed the rag within yards of mitre square if it was just to wipe his hands on.
It wouldn't just so happen to appear in a doorway with a message above it

I'm willing to believe he either took the kidney on impulse, or just planned badly, and so he took part of her apron to carry the kidney, but then happened upon something, like a glass or pail, or even butcher paper, that was more suited to carrying it, and so he left the apron and took the kidney off in the new container. The graffito is a coincidence. There was probably lots of graffiti in that part of the city, and the chances were that wherever the apron landed, it would have landed near some kind of graffito.