Why that ?

[DVV]

Hi all,

JtR wasn't in the habit of leaving clues behind him.
But on 30 September, he cut a piece of Eddowes' apron in Mitre Square, took it with him, soiled it, and finally threw it in Goulston Street.
Why that?

Amitiés,
David

[Graham]

I would say that he had already cut away the piece of apron to wipe his hands and knife, realised that he was about to be discovered, and ran away from the scene as fast as his legs would carry him, taking the piece of apron with him as he ran. Maybe.

Graham

[c.d.]

Hi Graham,

But why not just wipe his hands on the rest of her apron rather than cutting off a piece?

c.d.

[Sam Flynn]

But why not just wipe his hands on the rest of her apron rather than cutting off a piece?

Time-pressure and clingy contamination, CD. Remember that this was the one occasion where we can be fairly sure that Jack had fæces on at least one of his hands. That stuff takes quite some time to remove effectively for, not only does it cling to the hands, but - unlike blood - it has an unmistakable odour. Not the sort of thing to have on one's person or clothing, if caught at large on the streets after a woman has been disembowelled in a nearby square, with fæcal matter smeared all over her externalised entrails.

[c.d.]

Hi Sam,

Yes, that makes sense.

c.d.

[sdreid]

I always wondered if he didn't place the apron segment there to leave a false trail.

[Graham]

Don't think so, Stan. I think he just tossed it into a convenient dark doorway as he ran past, without bothering to pause for a few minutes to write the GSG.

Cheers,

Graham

[Leatherface]

The apron remnant has always led me to believe that the Goulston Graffiti was the work of Jack. I know that this is speculative, but with the two being so close and the absolute lack of any other clues makes me think that the two are related. If it was a matter of just washing his hands, there were a number of available spiggots to wash under in the area.

R

[Monty]

I personally feel the apron was cut during the act of opening her clothes, and was utilized.

Its important to mention Bloodhounds here as well.

Monty

[Limehouse]

Hi Graham,

But why not just wipe his hands on the rest of her apron rather than cutting off a piece?

c.d.

The rest of the apron was probably tied around Kate's waist and would have been difficult to remove swiftly.

I am inclined to think that the graffiti was the work of a journalist, much in the same way that letters and cards sent to the Central News Agency were believed to be. I think the graffiti was only noticed when the apron was found nearby.

[Sam Flynn]

If it was a matter of just washing his hands, there were a number of available spiggots to wash under in the area.

Do we know where these "spiggots" were? How numerous they were, and whether they were located in the midst of public roads and residential courts, I certainly don't know. Neither do I know whether any such outlets were located near street-lamps, but it would have made sense if they were - not only to make them more readily accessible at night, but possibly also because water and gas supplies may have shared the same channels. Either way, it strikes me that public water outlets may have been ill-suited to the purpose of a murderer covertly washing his hands.

Besides (1), Goulston Street was reasonably near to Mitre Square, and it wouldn't have taken him long to get there [as an aside, Goulston St was also the location of a well-known public bath-house]; and (2) it might not have been simply a matter of Jack washing his hands, but of shielding his clothing from contamination. Given the fact that excrement was smeared over the victim's entrails, one of the killer's hands is very likely to have received a fair coating of the stuff - an improvised "mitten" of apron cloth would have served as an effective insulator.

[FrankO]

I personally feel the apron was cut during the act of opening her clothes, and was utilized.

I'm with you, Monty. I think the apron was cut off, by accident, when he tried to cut open her clothes, so he could pull up her skirts. To me, it seems the most likely that the apron was cut off before he pulled up the skirts. It wouldn't make sense if he'd done it afterwards, because that would mean he'd pulled them up so he could 'work' her abdomen, then - at least to some extent - pulled them down again to cut the piece off, and then pulled them up again, so that they were the way they were when Eddowes' body was found, including the intestines drawn out and places over the right shoulder.

All the best,
Frank

[Monty]

Frank,

Also ties in with the buttons Sergeant Jones found.

Gareth,

I know your not proposing this, Im just mentioning it before someone else does, but the Goulston st baths would have been closed around 10 to 11pm and could not have been accessed after Eddowes murder.

Monty

[Sam Flynn]

I know your not proposing this

Indeed, Neil. As I said - it was just an aside on my part.

the Goulston st baths would have been closed around 10 to 11pm and could not have been accessed after Eddowes murder.

Correct - well, at least officially closed to the public. Not that I'd propose reading too much into it; I'm pretty sure that at that time of the morning the premises would have been well and truly shut.

[Sam Flynn]

I'm with you, Monty. I think the apron was cut off, by accident

Agreed - well, at least partly cut-through, Frank. The condition of some of Eddowes' other "layers", with severed waist bands and zig-zag incisions, certainly seems to indicate that Jack had cut through them at the same time. Whether that deed completely loosened the swatch he was later to take to Goulston Street, or whether it required one final cut to free it completely, is unknowable. Not that it makes any material (pardon pun) difference either way.