A Victorian Apron Full of Questions...

[Varqm]

He means Church Lane, one of the three ways to access Mitre Square.

"From two different sources we have the story that a man when passing through Church-lane at about half-past one, saw a man sitting on a door-step and wiping his hands. As every one is on the look out for the murderer the man looked at the stranger with a certain amount of suspicion, whereupon he tried to conceal his face. He is described as a man who wore a short jacket and a sailor's hat." - The Star, 1 October, 1888.

We also have the following from the same issue of the Star, where PC Watkins.

"Sometimes I go into Mitre-square through the Church-passage, but last night I entered from Mitre-street. It was just half-past one when I turned out of Aldgate and passed round the next corner into the square. At that time there was nothing unusual to be seen." I looked carefully in all the corners, as I always do, turning my lantern light in every direction. I am positive there was nothing wrong at that time."

"And when did you pass through the square again?" asked the reporter.

"At about a quarter before two."

"Had you met any person on your rounds?"

"Not a soul."

The story of the man in the sailor's hat is second hand. If this is the Ripper, it means that he waited half-an-hour after murdering Stride before wiping the blood off his hands. I also mean that within 4 or 5 minutes, the killer went from being afraid that one man would get a look at his to not caring if three men - Joseph Lawende, Joseph Levy, and Harris Harris - saw his face while he was talking to a woman he was about to murder.

That leaves me very doubtful that Sailor Hat was the same man seen by Lawende, Levy, and Harris.

On the first story it could be Backchurch Lane.

[Fiver]

I presume you mean the Enon Chapel Abby? That place had a grim history, definitely worth reading about. Just not over lunch.

He means Church Lane, one of the three ways to access Mitre Square.

"From two different sources we have the story that a man when passing through Church-lane at about half-past one, saw a man sitting on a door-step and wiping his hands. As every one is on the look out for the murderer the man looked at the stranger with a certain amount of suspicion, whereupon he tried to conceal his face. He is described as a man who wore a short jacket and a sailor's hat." - The Star, 1 October, 1888.

We also have the following from the same issue of the Star, where PC Watkins.

"Sometimes I go into Mitre-square through the Church-passage, but last night I entered from Mitre-street. It was just half-past one when I turned out of Aldgate and passed round the next corner into the square. At that time there was nothing unusual to be seen." I looked carefully in all the corners, as I always do, turning my lantern light in every direction. I am positive there was nothing wrong at that time."

"And when did you pass through the square again?" asked the reporter.

"At about a quarter before two."

"Had you met any person on your rounds?"

"Not a soul."

The story of the man in the sailor's hat is second hand. If this is the Ripper, it means that he waited half-an-hour after murdering Stride before wiping the blood off his hands. I also mean that within 4 or 5 minutes, the killer went from being afraid that one man would get a look at his to not caring if three men - Joseph Lawende, Joseph Levy, and Harris Harris - saw his face while he was talking to a woman he was about to murder.

That leaves me very doubtful that Sailor Hat was the same man seen by Lawende, Levy, and Harris.

[Fiver]

Question: post Polly-does anyone know what route to work Cross took afterwards? Did he continue to take Buck's Row?

Based on the testimonies of Robert Paul and Charles Cross, they traveled together for a significant way. Heading west on Buck's Row, it ended in a T intersection, with Montague. Turning right, they went a block north on Montague, where they encountered PC Mizen near the corner of Montague and Hanbury Street.

From there, Cross and Paul walked west in Hanbury to Corbett's Court, a distance of several blocks. Paul worked as a carman for some firm there, though we do not know who. To the immediate west was Spitalfield's Market.

Charles Cross would have continued west an slightly south from there towards the Broad Street Station, though we do not know by what route.

The total distance that Paul and Cross traveled together appears to be roughly 15 blocks.

[Abby Normal]

I presume you mean the Enon Chapel Abby? That place had a grim history, definitely worth reading about. Just not over lunch.

hi al
never heard of enon. i was referring to the anonymous (anon) church street sighting of the ripper, acting suspicious..sitting on some steps, wiping his hands and trying to hide his face. this was in between in time and place between the stride and eddowes murders.
Sugdens all over it in his book.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

I presume you mean the Enon Chapel Abby? That place had a grim history, definitely worth reading about. Just not over lunch.

[Abby Normal]

I am not dismissing the period testimony of police officials. I am analyzing it.

The GSG was evidence. Several police copied down the wording. There are slight variations in wording, but we appear to have a fairly accurate transcription. They also note that it was in a "round hand" (cursive), which can explain some of the spelling discrepancies. I think the police should have photographed the GSG - as GUT notes that would have provided a handwriting sample and a rough estimate of the height of the person who wrote the GSG. Most police wanted the GSG preserved and photographed - Warren was the only one who wanted it erased, but he outranked the others.

But just because something is evidence doesn't mean it was a clue. Police estimated the GSG was fresh, but that does not mean it was written at the same time the apron piece was dropped. The apron was clearly part of Eddowes' apron, but why did the killer take it? And was it dropped deliberately or accidentally?

The two most likely reasons to take the apron piece would be to carry off a trophy organ or as a improvised bandage. With the amount of frenzied slashing done to Eddowes body, there is the possibility that the killer accidentally cut himself and needed an improvised bandage.

Had the killer made it safely back to their lodging with a trophy organ, burning the apron piece in the fireplace would have been much safer than going back into the street and dropping it somewhere. That would make an accidental dropping more likely, perhaps spooked by encountering someone else. And accidental dropping would mean the proximity to the GSG was coincidence, with the lost trophy organ likely being gobbled up by a stay dog.

If the apron piece was an improvised bandage, then it would have been discarded because the wound had stopped bleeding. At which point, I'd expect the killer would be going home to wash out the wound in better light, not spending time chalking the GSG.

There is the idea that the GSG was chalked and the apron dropped as a way of taunting the police. That does fit the Saucy Jack persona, but as I have stated I think the Ripper persona was created by newspapermen to sell more newspapers and not a reflection of the personality of the real serial killer. Even then, the wording of the GSG does not match the style of any of the Ripper letters.

So while I cannot completely rule out the idea that the GSG was chalked by the killer, it seems wildly unlikely that it was.

yeah not too impressed with your detective skills there. the gsg was written on a mostly jewish building and surely the jewish residents would have rubbed out anti jewish graffiti had it been there for any length of time. the police thought it was from the killer, fresh and that it would have been rubbed out had it been there awhile. the gsg never saw the light of day, which points to it being written at the same time the rag was dropped there purposely.

the gsg disparages jews and what a coincidence... the ripper was seen, disturbed by several jews that night. one, schwartz, who abberline said looked very jewish.

also, if you knew thoroughly the events of that night, which you obviously dont, then you would have known that the anon church street sighting was undoubtedly the ripper in between the dutfield yard and mitre square murders, and he was seen wiping his hands. probably with a rag he brought out with him originally. and since he had to use that before the eddowes murder, he needed something to use to put her organs in, which is probanly why he took a piece of her apron. he gets home with his goodies, but still pissed about being seen by a bunch of jewish witnesses he heads back out with some chalk for a little pay back and writes the gsg and leaves the apron. worked like a charm.

the rest of your post is either irrelevant or makes no sense and not worth commenting on.

[Fiver]

Yes i see youve taken the stance of ''we have know way of knowing'' thats ok, many do. I on the other hand look at probability ,evidence and possiblity and what the police thought at the time ,rather than just dismiss the incident because its to easy to say ''We just dont Know''. Bit of a cop out really, one overwhelmingly outweighs the other in this case in my opininon. So again i doubt your doubt .


Just for the record, of course the writing if it was there the day before is relevent ,think about it ,its there for the whole day and no one notices it and says nothing? . So when the police turn up to wash it off, mind you not just any old police were talking Sir Charles Warren himself, dont you think someone would have mentioned it ? , Cmon think about it .

Its always astonishes me that people 134 years later would bring in to question and be willing to completely dismiss such historical doumented testimony from such important police officials who were there on the day without battering an eyelid just so to ignore what is known, because its easy to say ''We just dont know.''

I am not dismissing the period testimony of police officials. I am analyzing it.

The GSG was evidence. Several police copied down the wording. There are slight variations in wording, but we appear to have a fairly accurate transcription. They also note that it was in a "round hand" (cursive), which can explain some of the spelling discrepancies. I think the police should have photographed the GSG - as GUT notes that would have provided a handwriting sample and a rough estimate of the height of the person who wrote the GSG. Most police wanted the GSG preserved and photographed - Warren was the only one who wanted it erased, but he outranked the others.

But just because something is evidence doesn't mean it was a clue. Police estimated the GSG was fresh, but that does not mean it was written at the same time the apron piece was dropped. The apron was clearly part of Eddowes' apron, but why did the killer take it? And was it dropped deliberately or accidentally?

The two most likely reasons to take the apron piece would be to carry off a trophy organ or as a improvised bandage. With the amount of frenzied slashing done to Eddowes body, there is the possibility that the killer accidentally cut himself and needed an improvised bandage.

Had the killer made it safely back to their lodging with a trophy organ, burning the apron piece in the fireplace would have been much safer than going back into the street and dropping it somewhere. That would make an accidental dropping more likely, perhaps spooked by encountering someone else. And accidental dropping would mean the proximity to the GSG was coincidence, with the lost trophy organ likely being gobbled up by a stay dog.

If the apron piece was an improvised bandage, then it would have been discarded because the wound had stopped bleeding. At which point, I'd expect the killer would be going home to wash out the wound in better light, not spending time chalking the GSG.

There is the idea that the GSG was chalked and the apron dropped as a way of taunting the police. That does fit the Saucy Jack persona, but as I have stated I think the Ripper persona was created by newspapermen to sell more newspapers and not a reflection of the personality of the real serial killer. Even then, the wording of the GSG does not match the style of any of the Ripper letters.

So while I cannot completely rule out the idea that the GSG was chalked by the killer, it seems wildly unlikely that it was.

[FISHY1118]

Whether the writing was there the day before is irrelevant. We have no way of knowing if the GSG was written before, after, or at the same time as the apron piece was dropped. We have no way of knowing if the apron piece was dropped intentionally or accidentally.

I stand by what I said - I doubt that the GSG had anything to do with the Ripper.

Yes i see youve taken the stance of ''we have know way of knowing'' thats ok, many do. I on the other hand look at probability ,evidence and possiblity and what the police thought at the time ,rather than just dismiss the incident because its to easy to say ''We just dont Know''. Bit of a cop out really, one overwhelmingly outweighs the other in this case in my opininon. So again i doubt your doubt .


Just for the record, of course the writing if it was there the day before is relevent ,think about it ,its there for the whole day and no one notices it and says nothing? . So when the police turn up to wash it off, mind you not just any old police were talking Sir Charles Warren himself, dont you think someone would have mentioned it ? , Cmon think about it .

Its always astonishes me that people 134 years later would bring in to question and be willing to completely dismiss such historical doumented testimony from such important police officials who were there on the day without battering an eyelid just so to ignore what is known, because its easy to say ''We just dont know.''

[Fiver]

So the writing that nobody came forward to say was there the day befor, a part of her apron that just happen to have Eddowes bloodstains on it, found right below where it was written !!

I doubt your doubt, and say it had everything to do with th Ripper murder of Eddowes.

Whether the writing was there the day before is irrelevant. We have no way of knowing if the GSG was written before, after, or at the same time as the apron piece was dropped. We have no way of knowing if the apron piece was dropped intentionally or accidentally.

I stand by what I said - I doubt that the GSG had anything to do with the Ripper.

[FISHY1118]

1) I doubt the Goulston Street Graffito had anything to do with the Ripper. I also think the Ripper persona was created by newspapermen to sell more papers. There was a real serial killer, but we can't learn anything about him from the letters.

8) The Ripper's signature was very distinct. It was analyzed by experts.

13) Lechmere found the body, but there is no evidence that shows he was the killer. His actions are those of an innocent man or a stunningly stupid murderer. The timings of several of the other killings make him even less likely as a suspect.

15) While rare, there are examples of serial killers choosing to stop.

So the writing that nobody came forward to say was there the day befor, a part of her apron that just happen to have Eddowes bloodstains on it, found right below where it was written !!

I doubt your doubt, and say it had everything to do with th Ripper murder of Eddowes.

[Fiver]

I started my Ripper journey by binge listening to the Rippercast, virtually walking the streets - foot by foot - on Google Maps, and carefully dissecting the book, The London of Jack the Ripper: Then and Now by Philip Hutchinson and Robert Clack. With this grand triad of info, I have some questions. Maybe some of you learned folks can supply me with answers or better research ways of examining these issues and coming to estimated conclusions. Here goes. Answer all. Answer some. Answer none. Try and not rip the Messenger, i.e. me. ;-)

1) Goulston Street Graffito - why is Jack automatically carrying chalk? (Am I to assume he's created graffiti before? Why? Is he carrying chalk used on price signs because he was a Petticoat Lane merchant? There's not a lot to convince me here - time, purpose, risk vs reward - that the "Juwes" graffito was Jack's.)

8) Could this be the serial killer's signature? (Left hand on chest/torso? Head facing left? Chapman, Eddowes, Stride, Kelly) Any ideas as to its meaning?

13) Steve Blomer on July 21, 2019, podcast Inside Buck's Row - is 100% right. PC Mizen doesn't do anything wrong. Car men don't say Polly was attacked. No protocol breach needed as per an emergency. There is no conspiracy here. Charles Cross (Lechmere) is not the perp. This is a non suspect. Your thoughts?

15) What if Jack did voluntarily stop after Kelly? What if he was carrying out an art form only he could appreciate and Kelly was his magnum opus? Similar M.O. to the Black Dahlia killer?

1) I doubt the Goulston Street Graffito had anything to do with the Ripper. I also think the Ripper persona was created by newspapermen to sell more papers. There was a real serial killer, but we can't learn anything about him from the letters.

8) The Ripper's signature was very distinct. It was analyzed by experts.

13) Lechmere found the body, but there is no evidence that shows he was the killer. His actions are those of an innocent man or a stunningly stupid murderer. The timings of several of the other killings make him even less likely as a suspect.

15) While rare, there are examples of serial killers choosing to stop.

[Abby Normal]

Particularly if he had started another series of murders first.

there ya go!

[Harry D]

i'm of the tendency that The Ripper had anatomical familiarity prior to the canonical series of murders in 1888.

Particularly if he had started another series of murders first.

[Robert St Devil]

Maybe it's just me, but there's no way I'd know my way around body parts that shone wet inky-black in even a low light source.

Does this mean anything?
Is this perp used to working at night?
Used to eviscerating guts at night?
(Ex. Stockyard killings done late at night in the East End?)

And as the Stride case goes, the killer wasn't thinking with his head -- that narrow entrance, no alternate exit without going through the club, zero light source, club packed -- I keep thinking Stride wasn't planned OR Jack needed to target Stride and couldn't locate her anyehere else, so he was forced to kill her there or not at all.

مرحبا كتب

for that matter...
you could also say he wasn't thinking with his head in regards to Chapman's murder location (no alternate exit, house filled with people, etc.). a step further, the stride murder location is less confined than the Chapman murder location (as in, the street - Berner Street - was more accessible to him from the IWEC passageway than Hanbury Street was from that backyard). However, I believe that the audacity of the crime speaks more towards his character as a serial killer rather than his cluelessness.

regarding your stockyard question...
i'm of the tendency that The Ripper had anatomical familiarity prior to the canonical series of murders in 1888. More so, I would favor the probability that The Ripper possessed human anatomical familiarities prior to the whitechapel murders. i can't discount "stockyard killings" or "butcher-shop, uh, butcherings" as possibly imparting The Ripper with the skill-craft knowledge to accurately identify & remove specific organs (uterus, kidney); however, my thoughts linger on details of the Chapman and Eddowes case.
The Ripper knew enough to dodge his blade around the navel in regards to his M.O. of eviscerating each woman; that, in itself, speaks on his familiarity of "dissection" in practice. However, where they differ is that he removed Chapman's belly in chunks whereas he simply sliced open Eddowes' belly. My personal belief is this difference in mutilation was directly in relation to Chapman being fat (more belly fat) and Eddowes being skinny (no belly fat).
Not an expert on stockyard killings or butcher-shop butcherings; still is it that much of a false assertion to claim that their professional manner of "eviscerating" a 'barnyard animal' probably didn't vary from one beast to the next based on whether or not the "horse, pig, whatever" was fat or not? No; I tend to think The Ripper had enough practice with the human form to differentiate his method based on body shape.
in regards to the casebook, i've learned to play probabilities over certainties. and, i've always ranked the "hannibal lecteresque" suggestion made by a professional criminal from 1888 high on my list of probabilities. The suggestion being that, Jack the Ripper had morgue knowledge.

regarding your "at night" questions...
his murder of catherine eddowes is a clear case of how he wasn't accustomed to working in the dark; the evidence being, how he incidentally both cuts through her intestine and jabs her liver when he is slicing her open. i can't purposely see any reason why he would have wanted her feces to spill out into her abdomen; proof being, how fecal matter is found on the removed part of the apron.

[Trevor Marriott]

I wanna blame Trevor for shitting up another thread with his theory but more fool the rest of you for biting.

I was merely answering a posters original question until polly parrot decided to get involved

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk