Goulstan Street Graffito.

[TheCuriousCat]

Hi TCC

The message seems ambiguous to us, but may not have been to its intended audience (of course if we could see the message we might find it was not as ambiguous as reported - whether written by the ripper or not.

Finding the message does seem a bit hit or miss, so if written by the ripper, leaving it where he knew two policemen regularly passed and would be on heightened alert might have raised the likelihood. As to other messages, it is possible he had left messages not found or that he had written to the police but it was not recognised as genuine. Using artefacts from the murder scene to single out the messages as genuine may have been his thinking (both the apron piece and the kidney if the Lusk letter is genuine).




I'm not sure that having a photograph of the GSG would have helped with catching the killer either. But it would have been one potential piece of evidence in an otherwise empty evidence box. At least if it could have properly been examined, it could have been discounted or may have provided some useful data. Alas, it is a moot point since Warren ensured the evidence was destroyed and I find his destruction of potential evidence difficult to understand. I am not convinced by the excuse he gave for erasing the writing.

Fair point that something has more evidentiary power than nothing.

[TheCuriousCat]

If she wasnt physically wearing an apron at the time of her murder then the killer could not have a cut a pice from that apron its not rocket science, consider the fact that she may have not been wearing an apron but simply been in posssession of two old pieces of white apron prior to her arrest.

Physics seems to work differently in my world than it does in yours. I agree that we have no way of knowing if the apron was on her body at the time of the attack, but I'm still completely confused by your assertion that a killer couldn't cut a piece from the cloth unless she was wearing it. There are hundreds of fabric stores with long bolts of fabric that people cut pieces from that have never been on a human body at any time. When you cut paper, do you... put it on first?? How is that even possible? Really don't know why you think a person can't cut fabric that isn't being worn in half.

Also, if she just had two pieces of fabric, then it is even easier, the killer could have just taken one.

Maybe it will become more clear when I read the rest of your post more carefully.

The official statement of Dr Brown I believe adds real corroboration to the fact that she wasn’t wearing an apron. “My attention was called to the apron it was the corner of the apron with the string attached.” This shows that the apron piece from the mortuary was of the type which originally had two strings attached.

Or...the string went around the neck, and he used the word corner to describe a narrower top portion of the apron. Dr. Brown doesn't seem like an expert in describing women's apparel. This is an instance where a photo would have been highly useful.

But yeah, got it. She wasn't wearing it.

However, he describes it as a corner piece with a string attached, so that would mean that it was either the left or right-hand corner nearest to the waistband. So that would have meant that if she had been wearing the apron at the time of her death and the killer had cut or torn the apron piece found in Goulston Street then the rest of the apron would be left behind still attached to her body and still fixed with the two strings still attached, and would have been described as an old white apron with a piece missing, not as was described as old white apron piece, and would have been of significant size for the doctors and police to document it as just that. But because the piece found in Goulston Street matched the piece from the mortuary what was accounted with the two pieces was in effect one half of an apron.

Or... he cut off the string near the sheet and then cut the apron in half. Or... you're right and it wasn't a full apron. Or Dr. Brown's style of description is very different than yours. (People in these reports almost never describe things the way I would. I mean, if I were describing a crime scene, I would use compass directions, they clearly didn't.)

However, as previously stated there were discrepancies and conflicting reports both from official statements of officers and doctors alike.

Dr Brown as quoted in The Telegraph Inquest report:
“Coroner: Was your attention called to the portion of the apron that was found in Goulston- street?
“Dr Brown: Yes I fitted that portion which was spotted with blood to the remaining portion, which was still attached by the strings to the body.”

Note he refers to strings suggesting that the apron was still fixed to the body. This press report is incorrect and misleading. As has been previously stated the body arrived at the mortuary at 3.15 am and was then stripped. The Goulston Street apron piece was at that time in the hands of Dr Phillips who was at Leman Street Police Station and after receiving it, later on, took it to the mortuary for it to be matched with the mortuary piece, but he did not arrive at the mortuary till after 5.20 am so Dr. Brown could not have fitted the Goulston Street piece at the mortuary while the mortuary piece was affixed to the body.

Again with the police officers, there are inconsistencies with the reports, Inspector Collard’s official statement: “I produce a portion of the apron piece the deceased was apparently wearing which had been cut through and found outside her dress.”

Note he says “apparently wearing” why was he not specific in his statement after all he says he was at the mortuary when the body was stripped, he produced the lists of her clothing and personal effects surely he must have known whether she was or wasn’t wearing one?

Maybe he wasn't that concerned about whether people would feel the need to debate whether she was wearing an apron 132 years after the fact, and didn't feel like it was a point that he had to satisfy history upon.

Congrats, you've managed to go from convincing me that she wasn't wearing the apon, to being back to her possibly having worn the apron, and convinced me that you and I have now paid more attention to this apron than the entire Metropolitan and City Police Forces combined over the entire investigation.
...and I'm still not entirely sure what the point you are trying to make is.

Inspector Collard as quoted in The Telegraph: “It was then taken to the mortuary, and stripped by Mr Davis, the mortuary keeper, in presence of the two doctors and myself. I have a list of articles of clothing more or less stained with blood and cut.”

Inspector Collard as quoted in the Times: “The body was taken to the mortuary. A portion of the apron was found on her, and the other portion picked up in Goulston Street, would also be produced.”

His quotes from the above newspapers do not help in clarifying the matter, and he makes no mention of Dc Halse being present.

Dc Halse states he accompanied Inspector Collard to the mortuary in his official statement states: “I accompanied Inspector Collard to the mortuary I saw the deceased stripped and saw that a portion of apron was missing.”

Was he present when the body was stripped or did he only see the body after it had been stripped?

In this statement, Halse does not help either way in proving or disproving whether she was or wasn’t wearing an apron.

Dc Halse quoted in the Times Newspaper: “I then saw the deceased undressed and noticed that a portion of the apron she wore was missing.”
Dc Halse quoted in The Telegraph: “I saw the deceased and noticed that a portion of her apron was missing

The question must be as to what made Dc Halse make specific note of the missing piece and when? The Goulston Street piece was not found until 2.55 am and then the officer finding it conveyed it to a police station arriving at about 3.15 am that would have been the same time that the body of Eddowes arrived at the mortuary and was stripped. After all, I would have thought the torn clothing caused by the knife and the wounds of Eddowes would have been more noticeable and warranted noting down. Or was it a case of him becoming aware of the significance of the apron piece much later? Because when the body was stripped and he was present, no one at the mortuary would have been aware of the Goulston Street piece having been found.

I think the only thing that they really cared about was whether the piece of the apron found in Goulstan was associated with the murder. It's the only thing that seems relevant to me. Really not sure why it matters if she was wearing it or not.

On a final note had she been wearing an apron and the killer cut a piece he would have had great difficulty because her clothes were up above her waist and if she had been wearing an apron that would have been the most difficult of all her clothing to take hold of and cut because it would have been the furthest item of clothing away from the killer, other clothing would have been more accessible and easier to cut.

I've taken bras off women one-handed, in the dark, behind their backs, while inebriated, without taking their shirts off (for the record:this was fully consensual. Given the context of the conversation, seemed important to mention that.) I think the killer could fairly easily remove an apron with a knife. An apron (if she was wearing it) was the only item of clothing she was wearing that the killer could entirely remove with a single knife stroke.

So those who belive that she was wearing an apron, and that the killer cut a piece to either take the organs away or to wipe his hands and knife may want to re think that belief.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Why? Because he couldn't have taken a piece of fabric unless it was the easiest to cut off her body? I'm more confused now about why you think that than before when I started reading. You really need to explain why you think that the killer could only remove fabric that she had been wearing. Why couldn't he take something out of her hand?

[Trevor Marriott]

What are you inferring from all this Trevor? The cloth found in Goulston Street matched the apron found with Eddowes body. She was either wearing the apron or she had it on her person in some way. The fact that he cut a piece suggests that she was wearing it. There are discrepancies which occur all over the case. Human error.

If you can come up with a sensible alternative (apart from it being planted in Goulston Street of course) then I’m all ears.

There you go again cherry picking your replies yet again

You need to go back and re read post 62

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Collard:

. [Coroner] Was there any money about her? - No; no money whatever was found. A piece of cloth was found in Goulston-street, corresponding with the apron worn by the deceased

So he said she was wearing an apron.


PC Robinson:

. her? - No. The apron being produced, torn and discoloured with blood, the witness said that to the best of his knowledge it was the apron the deceased was wearing.

So did he.

PC Hutt:

. Coroner] In your opinion is that the apron the deceased was wearing? - To the best of my belief it is.

And him.

........

And on your response to Jeff in post #61


Long:

. [Coroner] Which did you notice first - the piece of apron or the writing on the wall? - The piece of apron, one corner of which was wet with blood.

[Herlock Sholmes]

If she wasnt physically wearing an apron at the time of her murder then the killer could not have a cut a pice from that apron its not rocket science, consider the fact that she may have not been wearing an apron but simply been in posssession of two old pieces of white apron prior to her arrest.

The official statement of Dr Brown I believe adds real corroboration to the fact that she wasn’t wearing an apron. “My attention was called to the apron it was the corner of the apron with the string attached.” This shows that the apron piece from the mortuary was of the type which originally had two strings attached.

However, he describes it as a corner piece with a string attached, so that would mean that it was either the left or right-hand corner nearest to the waistband. So that would have meant that if she had been wearing the apron at the time of her death and the killer had cut or torn the apron piece found in Goulston Street then the rest of the apron would be left behind still attached to her body and still fixed with the two strings still attached, and would have been described as an old white apron with a piece missing, not as was described as old white apron piece, and would have been of significant size for the doctors and police to document it as just that. But because the piece found in Goulston Street matched the piece from the mortuary what was accounted with the two pieces was in effect one half of an apron.
However, as previously stated there were discrepancies and conflicting reports both from official statements of officers and doctors alike.

Dr Brown as quoted in The Telegraph Inquest report:
“Coroner: Was your attention called to the portion of the apron that was found in Goulston- street?
“Dr Brown: Yes I fitted that portion which was spotted with blood to the remaining portion, which was still attached by the strings to the body.”

Note he refers to strings suggesting that the apron was still fixed to the body. This press report is incorrect and misleading. As has been previously stated the body arrived at the mortuary at 3.15 am and was then stripped. The Goulston Street apron piece was at that time in the hands of Dr Phillips who was at Leman Street Police Station and after receiving it, later on, took it to the mortuary for it to be matched with the mortuary piece, but he did not arrive at the mortuary till after 5.20 am so Dr. Brown could not have fitted the Goulston Street piece at the mortuary while the mortuary piece was affixed to the body.

Again with the police officers, there are inconsistencies with the reports, Inspector Collard’s official statement: “I produce a portion of the apron piece the deceased was apparently wearing which had been cut through and found outside her dress.”

Note he says “apparently wearing” why was he not specific in his statement after all he says he was at the mortuary when the body was stripped, he produced the lists of her clothing and personal effects surely he must have known whether she was or wasn’t wearing one?

Inspector Collard as quoted in The Telegraph: “It was then taken to the mortuary, and stripped by Mr Davis, the mortuary keeper, in presence of the two doctors and myself. I have a list of articles of clothing more or less stained with blood and cut.”

Inspector Collard as quoted in the Times: “The body was taken to the mortuary. A portion of the apron was found on her, and the other portion picked up in Goulston Street, would also be produced.”

His quotes from the above newspapers do not help in clarifying the matter, and he makes no mention of Dc Halse being present.

Dc Halse states he accompanied Inspector Collard to the mortuary in his official statement states: “I accompanied Inspector Collard to the mortuary I saw the deceased stripped and saw that a portion of apron was missing.”

Was he present when the body was stripped or did he only see the body after it had been stripped?

In this statement, Halse does not help either way in proving or disproving whether she was or wasn’t wearing an apron.

Dc Halse quoted in the Times Newspaper: “I then saw the deceased undressed and noticed that a portion of the apron she wore was missing.”
Dc Halse quoted in The Telegraph: “I saw the deceased and noticed that a portion of her apron was missing

The question must be as to what made Dc Halse make specific note of the missing piece and when? The Goulston Street piece was not found until 2.55 am and then the officer finding it conveyed it to a police station arriving at about 3.15 am that would have been the same time that the body of Eddowes arrived at the mortuary and was stripped. After all, I would have thought the torn clothing caused by the knife and the wounds of Eddowes would have been more noticeable and warranted noting down. Or was it a case of him becoming aware of the significance of the apron piece much later? Because when the body was stripped and he was present, no one at the mortuary would have been aware of the Goulston Street piece having been found.

On a final note had she been wearing an apron and the killer cut a piece he would have had great difficulty because her clothes were up above her waist and if she had been wearing an apron that would have been the most difficult of all her clothing to take hold of and cut because it would have been the furthest item of clothing away from the killer, other clothing would have been more accessible and easier to cut.

So those who belive that she was wearing an apron, and that the killer cut a piece to either take the organs away or to wipe his hands and knife may want to re think that belief.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

What are you inferring from all this Trevor? The cloth found in Goulston Street matched the apron found with Eddowes body. She was either wearing the apron or she had it on her person in some way. The fact that he cut a piece suggests that she was wearing it. There are discrepancies which occur all over the case. Human error.

If you can come up with a sensible alternative (apart from it being planted in Goulston Street of course) then I’m all ears.

[Trevor Marriott]

I apologize, but I don't have my reference books with me, but my recollection is that the apron piece had a corner that was described as heavily saturated in blood, which would happen if pieces were placed on the corner, then the apron rolled around it (similar to how the centre of the cloth above is heavily saturated because the organ was placed there and parts further from the centre are just spotted and smeared a bit).

That being said, if the partial uterus and kidney were wrapped in the apron piece, it seems to me unlikely JtR would unwrap them while en route to where ever he was going. While it also seems unlikely to me he would then venture out again with a piece of bloody cloth, that seems less unlikely than unwrapping while travelling. However, if he used the apron only to clean his hands and knife, and tossed it when finished, then the en route idea makes more sense (with the corner having been saturated at the original scene). Since there's nothing to suggest he needed anything from other scenes where he took organs (Chapman's uterus and some bits of belly, Kelly's heart), I see no reason to suggest he needed the apron to carry organs this time.

Of course, anything is possible, but the "apron to clean his hands" due to him rupturing her bowel, still strikes me as the most plausible. Sadly, we don't have any image depicting the nature, placement, or shape of the stains, information that would greatly help us move beyond speculating based upon our own prior beliefs and fooling ourselves into thinking we have uncovered evidence (myself included here of course).

- Jeff

Not wet with blood!

Pc Long’s official statement: “I found a portion of a woman’s apron, there appeared blood stains on it, and one portion was wet.”

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

??????

I've cut a lot of clothes into rags. None of them were being worn by someone at the time. I can't for the life of me figure out why you think it matters if the apron string was wrapped around her waist by the time Dr. Brown saw the body. Your comment, "If she wasn't wearing an apron, the killer could not cut a piece off could he" is non-nonsensical unless you think it isn't possible for someone capable of removing kidneys from inside a body is incapable of taking off an apron.

If she wasnt physically wearing an apron at the time of her murder then the killer could not have a cut a pice from that apron its not rocket science, consider the fact that she may have not been wearing an apron but simply been in posssession of two old pieces of white apron prior to her arrest.

The official statement of Dr Brown I believe adds real corroboration to the fact that she wasn’t wearing an apron. “My attention was called to the apron it was the corner of the apron with the string attached.” This shows that the apron piece from the mortuary was of the type which originally had two strings attached.

However, he describes it as a corner piece with a string attached, so that would mean that it was either the left or right-hand corner nearest to the waistband. So that would have meant that if she had been wearing the apron at the time of her death and the killer had cut or torn the apron piece found in Goulston Street then the rest of the apron would be left behind still attached to her body and still fixed with the two strings still attached, and would have been described as an old white apron with a piece missing, not as was described as old white apron piece, and would have been of significant size for the doctors and police to document it as just that. But because the piece found in Goulston Street matched the piece from the mortuary what was accounted with the two pieces was in effect one half of an apron.
However, as previously stated there were discrepancies and conflicting reports both from official statements of officers and doctors alike.

Dr Brown as quoted in The Telegraph Inquest report:
“Coroner: Was your attention called to the portion of the apron that was found in Goulston- street?
“Dr Brown: Yes I fitted that portion which was spotted with blood to the remaining portion, which was still attached by the strings to the body.”

Note he refers to strings suggesting that the apron was still fixed to the body. This press report is incorrect and misleading. As has been previously stated the body arrived at the mortuary at 3.15 am and was then stripped. The Goulston Street apron piece was at that time in the hands of Dr Phillips who was at Leman Street Police Station and after receiving it, later on, took it to the mortuary for it to be matched with the mortuary piece, but he did not arrive at the mortuary till after 5.20 am so Dr. Brown could not have fitted the Goulston Street piece at the mortuary while the mortuary piece was affixed to the body.

Again with the police officers, there are inconsistencies with the reports, Inspector Collard’s official statement: “I produce a portion of the apron piece the deceased was apparently wearing which had been cut through and found outside her dress.”

Note he says “apparently wearing” why was he not specific in his statement after all he says he was at the mortuary when the body was stripped, he produced the lists of her clothing and personal effects surely he must have known whether she was or wasn’t wearing one?

Inspector Collard as quoted in The Telegraph: “It was then taken to the mortuary, and stripped by Mr Davis, the mortuary keeper, in presence of the two doctors and myself. I have a list of articles of clothing more or less stained with blood and cut.”

Inspector Collard as quoted in the Times: “The body was taken to the mortuary. A portion of the apron was found on her, and the other portion picked up in Goulston Street, would also be produced.”

His quotes from the above newspapers do not help in clarifying the matter, and he makes no mention of Dc Halse being present.

Dc Halse states he accompanied Inspector Collard to the mortuary in his official statement states: “I accompanied Inspector Collard to the mortuary I saw the deceased stripped and saw that a portion of apron was missing.”

Was he present when the body was stripped or did he only see the body after it had been stripped?

In this statement, Halse does not help either way in proving or disproving whether she was or wasn’t wearing an apron.

Dc Halse quoted in the Times Newspaper: “I then saw the deceased undressed and noticed that a portion of the apron she wore was missing.”
Dc Halse quoted in The Telegraph: “I saw the deceased and noticed that a portion of her apron was missing

The question must be as to what made Dc Halse make specific note of the missing piece and when? The Goulston Street piece was not found until 2.55 am and then the officer finding it conveyed it to a police station arriving at about 3.15 am that would have been the same time that the body of Eddowes arrived at the mortuary and was stripped. After all, I would have thought the torn clothing caused by the knife and the wounds of Eddowes would have been more noticeable and warranted noting down. Or was it a case of him becoming aware of the significance of the apron piece much later? Because when the body was stripped and he was present, no one at the mortuary would have been aware of the Goulston Street piece having been found.

On a final note had she been wearing an apron and the killer cut a piece he would have had great difficulty because her clothes were up above her waist and if she had been wearing an apron that would have been the most difficult of all her clothing to take hold of and cut because it would have been the furthest item of clothing away from the killer, other clothing would have been more accessible and easier to cut.

So those who belive that she was wearing an apron, and that the killer cut a piece to either take the organs away or to wipe his hands and knife may want to re think that belief.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[etenguy]

Hi Etenguy

He was in haste to get away, and yet decided it was worth it and stop to write a bit of graffiti that wouldn't have been noticed if it wasn't for the constable searching for blood stains? Even though he hadn't ever felt the need to leave a message before, and it was very ambiguous as to what it meant. He must really have wanted to get that message out, but simultaneously felt content leave it up to chance that it would get spotted. It's always struck me as really suspect.

Hi TCC

The message seems ambiguous to us, but may not have been to its intended audience (of course if we could see the message we might find it was not as ambiguous as reported - whether written by the ripper or not.

Finding the message does seem a bit hit or miss, so if written by the ripper, leaving it where he knew two policemen regularly passed and would be on heightened alert might have raised the likelihood. As to other messages, it is possible he had left messages not found or that he had written to the police but it was not recognised as genuine. Using artefacts from the murder scene to single out the messages as genuine may have been his thinking (both the apron piece and the kidney if the Lusk letter is genuine).

I really don't see how the photograph helps. It apparently was fairly generic handwriting. So was the handwriting on the Dear Boss letter. At best, they would know how the killer (if it was the killer) spelled Jews and if he in fact had similar handwriting to the writer of that note. Which they decided he did. Which didn't help them. Possibly because tonnes of people had very similar handwriting. Like Ulysses S Grant and George Bernard Shaw. But... yeah, it would be cool to have seen the actual picture. I don't think having the picture would have made any difference to catching the killer.

I'm not sure that having a photograph of the GSG would have helped with catching the killer either. But it would have been one potential piece of evidence in an otherwise empty evidence box. At least if it could have properly been examined, it could have been discounted or may have provided some useful data. Alas, it is a moot point since Warren ensured the evidence was destroyed and I find his destruction of potential evidence difficult to understand. I am not convinced by the excuse he gave for erasing the writing.

[Herlock Sholmes]

An old piece of white apron found in her possessions no mention of her wearing an apron when the clothes were taken off the body

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I have to echo Cat’s ?????

As long as it was listed as being in her possession then I really can’t see an issue. Maybe the killer cut the string when he cut away the piece and so when they lifted the body it fell away from her. You’re looking for a mystery where none exists.

[TheCuriousCat]

An old piece of white apron found in her possessions no mention of her wearing an apron when the clothes were taken off the body

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

??????

I've cut a lot of clothes into rags. None of them were being worn by someone at the time. I can't for the life of me figure out why you think it matters if the apron string was wrapped around her waist by the time Dr. Brown saw the body. Your comment, "If she wasn't wearing an apron, the killer could not cut a piece off could he" is non-nonsensical unless you think it isn't possible for someone capable of removing kidneys from inside a body is incapable of taking off an apron.

[Trevor Marriott]

What...?

The doctor's report and the paper both list the apron among her possessions. Where are you getting the idea that she didn't have one? I mean, she might not have had it on, but there was an apron found with her dead body that matched the one found at Goulstan Street.

An old piece of white apron found in her possessions no mention of her wearing an apron when the clothes were taken off the body

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[TheCuriousCat]

If she wasnt wearing an apron the killer could not have cut a piece could he

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

What...?

The doctor's report and the paper both list the apron among her possessions. Where are you getting the idea that she didn't have one? I mean, she might not have had it on, but there was an apron found with her dead body that matched the one found at Goulstan Street.

[Trevor Marriott]

I'm confused. Brown's report speaks of matching a piece of a patched apron to the portion from Goulstan Street, and the Times of October 1st lists a piece of apron among her possessions. Are you specifically wondering why it wasn't listed as something she was wearing?

If she wasnt wearing an apron the killer could not have cut a piece could he

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[TheCuriousCat]

You wonder why the killer cut a piece of the apron. I wonder why there is no record of her wearing an apron when the body was stripped and her clothing and possessions listed in detail at the mortuary.

www.trevormarriott.couk

I'm confused. Brown's report speaks of matching a piece of a patched apron to the portion from Goulstan Street, and the Times of October 1st lists a piece of apron among her possessions. Are you specifically wondering why it wasn't listed as something she was wearing?

[DJA]

You wonder why the killer cut a piece of the apron. I wonder why there is no record of her wearing an apron when the body was stripped and her clothing and possessions listed in detail at the mortuary.

www.trevormarriott.couk

1 old piece of old white apron with repair was listed under possessions.