The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL

[Leanne]

Yes, there was a back exit. There's a modern (1970s or 80s?) photograph of the back of the building between pgs. 88 and 89 of Paul Harrison's JtR: The Mystery Solved.

My scanner is not cooperating so I can't upload it. It looks like a very tall doorway with an arch (taller than the entrance into Miller's Court) but it is bricked over, as are all the windows. The caption reads "The rear of Wentworth Dwellings, Goulston Street." I may try to scan it again later, or maybe someone else can jump in.

+++Or then again, maybe it's under copyright

I found this advertisement for a unit within the Wentworth Dwellings on Goulston Street showing the carpark at the back:

https://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-61719204.html

Can someone tell me where the alleyway in question would have been?

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Simon.

Certain about what, the apron being made of calico, or the cloth being called "apron" in anachronism?

On initial discovery at the mortuary the remaining piece was still around her neck, it was described as - "1 Large White Handkerchief".
The last item on the List of Possessions is the GS piece brought by Phillips - "1 Piece of old White Apron".

I seem to recall we went over the sequence of events a number of years ago.
PC Long took the rag to Commercial St., the inspector called Phillips to come and get it, and Phillips took it to the mortuary in Golden Lane, where it was added to the list of possessions, the last item.

The apron was not around her neck you are again misleading people.

The body was stripped at the mortuary, and the list made of all her clothing. Procedure dictated that the clothing was taken off and listed as it came off the body starting at the top and working down. Had she been wearing the remains of an apron and by your suggestion is was a bib apron, it would have been one of the first items to come off and be listed. The official list does not show that, but at the end lists "one piece of old white apron" This is from the official list made at the time. All other references to a handkerchief should be disregarded !

At the time the body was stripped the GS piece had not been found so if the killer had cut a piece from an apron she was wearing and what was left on the body was the remaining part of the apron, why was it not listed at that time as "One old white apron with piece missing" ?

I still maintain that she was not wearing an apron at the time of her death and that she had been in possession of two old pieces of white apron, which as some point in time had made up a full apron.

The apron piece was described as a corner piece with a string attached,( Dr Browns signed inquest testimony) Even you know that you cant tie an apron with only one string.

There can be no arguments, or ifs and buts, or what ifs, the evidence speaks for itself, any speculation must focus around the accepted facts and evidence.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

I agree with how Sam replied to you except to add. As the remaining piece of apron would look nothing like an apron to the eyes of some (hence the official identification as "handkerchief"), to the Times reporter he presumably did see what it had been at some point, possibly taking notice of the hemming, string & type of material.

If it was handkerchief size it could not have been as large as half an apron !

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Robert St Devil]

No matter how you slice it, it would have been quicker to wipe his dirty hands off on the clothes he had available right there on her body rather than cut a piece of apron off to use later. And besides he would have realized right away he got his hands covered in crap and the natural reaction would be to get it off right away quickly then and there on her clothes. No need to hesitate and cut a piece of apron for later.

no he cut that apron for use later in the manner that he did. It’s the only thing that makes any sense.

or perhaps he used it to carry the organ home, and when there got the idea to use it as he did.

Hello Abby, MWR and all

Sequencing Kate's murder is difficult because the possibilities outnumber the probabilities. There's not enough details supplied in the written record to make a convincing case. For example:

Jack the Ripper has cut into Kate's abdomen. Maybe he severs her colon by accident, she has after all a frail frame and maybe his blade penetrates a bit deeper than desired. Theoretically his knife is covered in blood. And so, a proposed theory, Jack cuts away a piece of her apron for some unknown reason. However and normally, when you cut through fabric with a bloody knife, blood would be transferred to both halves of the fabric along the edge of the cut. From what I remember (could be wrong), the police matched the two halves up by the thread and orientation of the apron halves (and possibly a patch?); but, no mention of them stating that the apron that remained on her body was bloody and that they matched the two halves up by blood staining. It's almost as if there's a possibility that Jack the Ripper cut through the apron with a clean knife; might he have cut away the apron prior to eviscerating Kate?

There is the stance that he cut Kate's abdomen and then cleaned his blade on her apron; after all, there was no feces found on Kate's face, meaning that he either cut her face first or that he wiped his blade clean before cutting her face. But that leaves the question, why would he need to cut away that portion of the apron if it only served to clean his blade in haste? There would have been no reason to take away that piece of the apron with him.

[Leanne]

Yes, there was a back exit. There's a modern (1970s or 80s?) photograph of the back of the building between pgs. 88 and 89 of Paul Harrison's JtR: The Mystery Solved.

My scanner is not cooperating so I can't upload it. It looks like a very tall doorway with an arch (taller than the entrance into Miller's Court) but it is bricked over, as are all the windows. The caption reads "The rear of Wentworth Dwellings, Goulston Street." I may try to scan it again later, or maybe someone else can jump in.

+++Or then again, maybe it's under copyright

Long wouldn't have bothered to search if their was a back exist that someone could have escaped by. He didn't at the time know that it was a piece of apron from a killing that occurred streets away and he didn't have much knowledge of Goulston Street. That's why he got someone on watch the front while he was gone.

[harry]

Yes Leanne,I corrected my post.The problem is how did that constable come to be at the scene.I believe it was only the one paper that reported it.Long states that after checking the passages and stairs,he took the apron piece to the police station.No mention of having summoned any help,or waiting for help to arrive.

[rjpalmer]

Was there a back entrance/exit?????? I am looking for a plan of those Model dwellings

Yes, there was a back exit. There's a modern (1970s or 80s?) photograph of the back of the building between pgs. 88 and 89 of Paul Harrison's JtR: The Mystery Solved.

My scanner is not cooperating so I can't upload it. It looks like a very tall doorway with an arch (taller than the entrance into Miller's Court) but it is bricked over, as are all the windows. The caption reads "The rear of Wentworth Dwellings, Goulston Street." I may try to scan it again later, or maybe someone else can jump in.

+++Or then again, maybe it's under copyright

[Cogidubnus]

THEY WOULD HAVE OR COULD HAVE CHECKED WHO THE NEXT CONSTABLE ON THE BEAT WAS![/SIZE][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/COLOR][/LEFT]
It's not in his first testimony, it's in his second.

It's not the next constable on his beat though is it? It's the constable from one of the adjoining ("next") beats...presumably he summoned him from close by, or the beats overlapped...

[Leanne]

Well Leanne I have studied newspaper reference you provided,and there is no mention of Long stating another police officer was present.

At this point Constable Long returned

, and produced the pocket-book containing the entry which he made at the time concerning the discovery of the writing on the wall.

Mr. Crawford

: What is the entry? -

Witness

: The words are, "The Jews are the men that will not be blamed for nothing."

[Coroner]

Both here and in your inspector's report the word "Jews" is spelt correctly? - Yes; but the inspector remarked that the word was spelt "Juwes."

………………......…..............................….....
……...…............................................ .….
….........……...…...…...….

[Coroner]

When you went away did you leave anybody in charge? - Yes; the constable on the next beat - 190, H Division - but I do not know his name.

[Coroner]

Did you give him instructions as to what he was to do? - I told him to keep observation on the dwelling house, and see if any one entered or left.

[Coroner]

When did you return?


THEY WOULD HAVE OR COULD HAVE CHECKED WHO THE NEXT CONSTABLE ON THE BEAT WAS!

It's not in his first testimony, it's in his second.

[Wickerman]

Jon,
do you think the Times reporter saw Kate's body before it was stripped, or were they assuming the apron piece in the pile of her belongings would have been worn around her neck?

I agree with how Sam replied to you except to add. As the remaining piece of apron would look nothing like an apron to the eyes of some (hence the official identification as "handkerchief"), to the Times reporter he presumably did see what it had been at some point, possibly taking notice of the hemming, string & type of material.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi sam
making me think hard about this. Here’s another possible similar scenario. Let me know what you think.

after the rippers aborted attack on stride, he is seen by the anon church street sighting wiping his hands, trying to hide his face etc. ( this sighting was roughly in between the two victims) and has to ditch that rag he originally brought. After eddowes he now has no cloth to wrap the organs in so has to use her cut apron. Back at his abode after cleaning up a bit he is stewing about the dam Jews that almost thwarted him he decides on the gsg signed by the rag. I like it. It explains everything and fits the nights evidence and narrative.

It fits the "I believe there was a Double Event" and "Jack wrote the GSG" narratives, neither of which I'm convinced about

[Michael W Richards]

Stride might not have been a Ripper murder (very probably wasn't, in my view), so we need to be a bit cautious with her case. As to the Eddowes murder, there's no telling whether the Ripper registered Lawende et al's ethnicity, assuming the killer was the man they saw at Church Passage. Furthermore, the area between Mitre Square and the heart of Spitalfields was only one among many parts of the East End that had a large Jewish population, so we need to be cautious there, too.

If we're spooked by coincidences, how many back yards in the whole of London - never mind Spitalfields - had a tap with a leather apron hanging on it? Yet Annie Chapman managed to get murdered in just such a yard at the height of the "Leather Apron" scare.

Sam, I believe that other than some prostitutes reporting that they were harassed by "Leather Apron", the attachment with the murders that were happening was a result of that wet apron. The Leather Apron scare began with that murder, imho.

The point about the Jewish component is valid regardless of whoever actually killed Stride. The 2 murders have been linked by many since day 1. It was, and is, widely believed she was a Ripper victim in addition to Kate that night, hence this Double Murder although in Strides case none of the relevant markers are there, and in Kates case, I personally see none of the previous skills sets or knowledge. I know we differ on the last point, but I still do not see Kates murder as eerily similar to Annies in some major features. I do see eerie similarities with Annie and Polly though.

IF Lawende saw Kate, then the Jewish component is alive and well in that murder as well.

As a side note, I personally don't think Lawende saw Kate, based on Watkins statement primarily, and Im 99% positive that Liz Strides killer didn't kill Kate Eddowes.

[Abby Normal]

Not with the noise of Harvey's and/or Watkins' boots clomping on the cobblestones. Besides, I think he did try to get rid of it by wiping his hand(s) on Eddowes' extruded viscera, which would explain why fæcal matter were smeared over them. This is the only instance where this happened in the Ripper series, and it is the only instance where a piece of the victim's clothing was cut and taken... to be found a few hundred yards away, with blood and fæcal matter wiped on it.

I think he decided to get out of there quick, put a bit of distance between himself and the crime-scene, and scrub up at leisure.

Hi sam
making me think hard about this. Here’s another possible similar scenario. Let me know what you think.

after the rippers aborted attack on stride, he is seen by the anon church street sighting wiping his hands, trying to hide his face etc. ( this sighting was roughly in between the two victims) and has to ditch that rag he originally brought. After eddowes he now has no cloth to wrap the organs in so has to use her cut apron. Back at his abode after cleaning up a bit he is stewing about the dam Jews that almost thwarted him he decides on the gsg signed by the rag. I like it. It explains everything and fits the nights evidence and narrative.

[FISHY1118]

Hi Sam ,id be interested in why you think stride wasn't a ripper victim.

[Sam Flynn]

Not true. Whoever killed Annie cut through her colon too.

Indeed so, although strictly speaking it wasn't cut through or removed, and there were no fæces reported in her case. Which is hardly surprising, given how meagre her diet must have been.

It's safe to say that Eddowes was the only case in which the colon had been cut out, and fæces had been smeared over her viscera.