The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL

[Kattrup]

Halse did the planting, Long made the discovery.

Hi Simon. Thanks. How did Halse get the apron piece, do you think?

[Joshua Rogan]

Halse did the planting, Long made the discovery.

The police were interested in something or someone that was far more important than a Jewish Jack the Ripper.

However, Sir Robert Anderson would have us believe differently.

When you say "the police" do you mean the City police, Met police, or both?

[Simon Wood]

Halse did the planting, Long made the discovery.

The police were interested in something or someone that was far more important than a Jewish Jack the Ripper.

However, Sir Robert Anderson would have us believe differently.

[Kattrup]

The piece of apron provided the police with a rationale for conducting an extensive house-to-house search amongst the Jews of the East End, details of which were included in Chief Inspector Swanson's 19th October report.

That's why the apron piece was planted in Goulston Street.

Hi Simon. So who do you think planted it?

What did the police gain from conducting a search amongst the Jews of the East End, in your opinion?

[Simon Wood]

Why wasn't one of the "12 pieces of white rag some slightly blood-stained" Eddowes was carrying, taken away? Why go to the bother of cutting off a piece of Eddowes' apron, only to dump it in Goulston Street?

Probably because the 12 pieces of white rag were anonymous. Only the piece of apron could be traced back to Eddowes. As Doctor Brown told the inquest, "I fitted that portion which was spotted with blood to the remaining portion, which was still attached by the strings to the body."

The Star, 2nd October 1888, knew the answer—

“That he [dropped the bloodstained rag] in Goulston Street does not occasion any surprise. The police have never doubted that this midnight murderer lived in the midst of the community he has been terrorising.”

The piece of apron provided the police with a rationale for conducting an extensive house-to-house search amongst the Jews of the East End, details of which were included in Chief Inspector Swanson's 19th October report.

That's why the apron piece was planted in Goulston Street.

[Wickerman]

Hi Trevor

The quote I have seen from the inquest testimony, and checked the record on this site too, is:

[Coroner] Which did you notice first - the piece of apron or the writing on the wall?

[Long} The piece of apron, one corner of which was wet with blood.

This makes more sense to me, as otherwise why would the rag have drawn Long's attention. Are you suggesting this is not the right description?

Trevor knows what is written, he's just got his cherry picker out thats all.

[Wickerman]

In regards to Kate using the piece of apron as a sanitary napkin and then dropping it next to the graffito, do we have any clue if Kate would/could have passed by Goulston street once released from the drunk tank? I.e. Is there a reasonable guess as to the route Kate traveled to Mitre Square?

Huh! Kate wrote the graffiti blaming Jews for her periods????
I hadn't realized that was part of Trevor's theory..

[Wickerman]

Read this:

https://casebook.org/victims/eddowes.html

That is not accurate- you need to use the original.

[Wickerman]

The large white blood stained handkerchief was in her possessions, not around her neck so it wasn't the remnants of an apron it was a handkerchief

I'm talking about the item listed after "1 piece of red gauze silk".
It is a "1 large White Handkerchief", blood stained.

If it was among her possessions why would it be blood stained?
Next are listed two "pockets", then her possessions begin with "1 white cotton pocket handkerchief, red and white birds eye border".

I am sure they knew the difference between an apron piece and a handkerchief.

I'm not. Due to the diagonal cut the piece remaining is pretty nonedescript in both size & shape, what else could he call it, a piece of scrap cloth? - that's a handkerchief.

This lists stand alone as prime evidence they were written at the time, it was produced by an Inspector who was present when the list was made, you cant get better evidence than that. You can huff and puff till the cows come home that evidence isnt going to change.

If it was written at the time, why isn't it written on several small pocketbook pages?
The standard issue for police taking notes in the field is their pocketbook, yet these notes have been transcribed on something close to Letter size. And, the whole list is very neat, but many items are underlined. If this was an original list of evidence no-one would be marking it up with lines here and there.
So I'm saying it is a transcribed copy made back at the station, taken from an original list of possessions in Collards? pocketbook.

Or, handn't you really thought about why the list is so neat if it was done on the fly at Golden Lane mortuary?

[Joshua Rogan]

In regards to Kate using the piece of apron as a sanitary napkin and then dropping it next to the graffito, do we have any clue if Kate would/could have passed by Goulston street once released from the drunk tank? I.e. Is there a reasonable guess as to the route Kate traveled to Mitre Square?

I think all we know is that she turned left out of Bishopsgate police station and was seen (probably) 35 minutes later in Duke Street. She certainly had time to visit Goulston Street. But then, she had time to visit anywhere in a 3/4mile radius and still get to Mitre Square in time to be murdered.

My guess would be that she headed down Houndsditch to St Botolph's church to try and earn some doss money.

[etenguy]

The apron piece was described as being wet no mention of wet with, blood PC Longs signed official inquest testimony

It was described as being spotted with blood and traces of fecal matter, all of the stains were on one side, all consistent with being between her legs, another description is that it was smeared on one side, again consistent with the aforementioned theory.

As to the blood spots a modern day consultant gynecologist states that due to her perhaps being malnourished when menstruating her body may have only produced spots of blood. In victorian days street women when menstruating wore pieces of rag as sanitary devices.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor

The quote I have seen from the inquest testimony, and checked the record on this site too, is:

[Coroner] Which did you notice first - the piece of apron or the writing on the wall?

[Long} The piece of apron, one corner of which was wet with blood.

This makes more sense to me, as otherwise why would the rag have drawn Long's attention. Are you suggesting this is not the right description?

[APerno]

In regards to Kate using the piece of apron as a sanitary napkin and then dropping it next to the graffito, do we have any clue if Kate would/could have passed by Goulston street once released from the drunk tank? I.e. Is there a reasonable guess as to the route Kate traveled to Mitre Square?

[Joshua Rogan]

Given the description, it seems to me more likely the apron was bloodied at the murder site and carried away.

This is a good point.
If the killer was organised and intended from the beginning to take the apron piece then it makes sense that he would have cut it at the beginning, probably when he cut through the waistband of all Kate's clothing. But if it was a last minute decision after the mutilations, then he would have had to extract the apron from under the intestines trailing across the thrown-up clothing.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor

I wondered if it was worth exploring your suggestion that the apron piece was used as a sanitary towel. If that were the case, it is unlikely to be used as a wipe, but more likely to be worn in the gusset over time. Most women will lose one or two teaspoons of blood over the course of a day. The apron piece was described as having a corner wet with blood, so not dried blood, or blood stains accumulated over time. I struggle to match the kind of stain described by the police with the use you ascribe. Given the description, it seems to me more likely the apron was bloodied at the murder site and carried away. I just wondered how you conceive the apron could be wet with blood given your alternative suggestion for how the rag became bloodied in the first place.

The apron piece was described as being wet no mention of wet with, blood PC Longs signed official inquest testimony

It was described as being spotted with blood and traces of fecal matter, all of the stains were on one side, all consistent with being between her legs, another description is that it was smeared on one side, again consistent with the aforementioned theory.

As to the blood spots a modern day consultant gynecologist states that due to her perhaps being malnourished when menstruating her body may have only produced spots of blood. In victorian days street women when menstruating wore pieces of rag as sanitary devices.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[etenguy]

Who knows what strange things people do, but one plausible explanation given the description of how the Gs piece was decsribed is that it could have been used as a sanitary device as I have suggested, and the second as a back up perhaps.

One thing is for sure, is that The GS piece was connected to the victim, and the victim was in lodgings very close to where it was found, and given the fact that her movements between 1am-1.44am are not known, and given the fact that she would have had time after leaving the police station to make her way back towards her lodgings and for those reasons this should not be dismissed outright.

i have gathered enough evidence to show that the organs were not taken away in it, and that there are many reasons why the killer would not have needed to wipe his hands or his knife on it. So there has to be an explanation does there not ?

Hi Trevor

I wondered if it was worth exploring your suggestion that the apron piece was used as a sanitary towel. If that were the case, it is unlikely to be used as a wipe, but more likely to be worn in the gusset over time. Most women will lose one or two teaspoons of blood over the course of a day. The apron piece was described as having a corner wet with blood, so not dried blood, or blood stains accumulated over time. I struggle to match the kind of stain described by the police with the use you ascribe. Given the description, it seems to me more likely the apron was bloodied at the murder site and carried away. I just wondered how you conceive the apron could be wet with blood given your alternative suggestion for how the rag became bloodied in the first place.