'the biggest blunder in the search for Jack the Ripper'

[caz]

A Pig's Ear

Had he intended to authenticate the Goulston Street message, he could have done so to far greater effect simply by slicing off one of Eddowes’ ears and leaving it in the vestibule. So why did he require the portion of apron if not to protect his clothing?

Well he may have planned to slice off an ear, Garry, but in the darkness made a pig's ear of it, only sliced off a small piece, which was then lost among her clothing. But if the apron piece was in the vestibule and not noticed first time round, would a tiny little ear on the ground have been spotted at all, let alone connected with the writing? People could easily have stepped on it or kicked it unknowingly. The apron piece was many times the size and as good a match to its other half, still with the body, as an ear would have been to its twin.

Successful serialists learn from experience and apply newfound knowledge to subsequent crimes. Thus if the killer had encountered the problem of body part fluid seepage at the time of the Hanbury Street killing, it should come as no surprise that he adopted appropriate countermeasures when faced with similar circumstances in Mitre Square.

But you are surely not suggesting he only picked on Eddowes because she had a handy, easy to remove apron on her person, to use afterwards for the fluid seepage? If Hanbury St had taught him such a lesson he'd have simply brought something out with him for the purpose along with his newly sharpened knife.

Love,

Caz
X

[Wyatt Earp]

Something else that occurs to me, Abby, is that if the Ripper had anticipated taking organs that night, he might have already had a pouch or something else on him with which to transport the organs. And so taking the apron could indeed have been done for the specific purpose you mentioned.

[Wyatt Earp]

I have always beleived that the GSG and the apron were probably connected and that the ripper left them because he was pissed off by being seen/ interupted by jews that night. But he did not start off the evening knowing that was going to happen so he did not have chalk on him.

After he kills Eddowes he removes the organs and knowing he needs something to prove his message he cuts the apron. Not having chalk on him and knowing he needs to get away from the secene quickly he skeedadles for his bolt hole. He has the apron and bloody organs so why not just wrap them up in the apron as he heads away from the scene. At home he leaves his knife and goodies, perhaps cleans up a tad and heads back out with apron and chalk. Covers pretty much everything and also explains the time gap.

Abby, this is exactly the type of scenario I am envisioning as well. A possible variant, though, would be this: the Ripper did cut the apron to put around the organs, and he only made the decision to go back and leave a message after he was already back at his safe haven and had perhaps had a little time to stew about things for a bit.

[Abby Normal]

The hiding of the body parts wouldn’t have been the issue, Tom. The problem would have been the transmission of fluids on to the killer’s clothing. The apron remnant would have overcome this problem, absorbing much of the fluid that would certainly have been discharged from freshly abstracted viscera.

Let’s look at it in a different way. Had the killer merely wished to clean his hands and knife, he could have done so at the crime scene by using Eddowes’ skirts. Had he intended to authenticate the Goulston Street message, he could have done so to far greater effect simply by slicing off one of Eddowes’ ears and leaving it in the vestibule. So why did he require the portion of apron if not to protect his clothing?


I would suggest otherwise, Tom. Successful serialists learn from experience and apply newfound knowledge to subsequent crimes. Thus if the killer had encountered the problem of body part fluid seepage at the time of the Hanbury Street killing, it should come as no surprise that he adopted appropriate countermeasures when faced with similar circumstances in Mitre Square.

Hi Garry, Tom, Chris

How about this.

I have always beleived that the GSG and the apron were probably connected and that the ripper left them because he was pissed off by being seen/ interupted by jews that night. But he did not start off the evening knowing that was going to happen so he did not have chalk on him.

After he kills Eddowes he removes the organs and knowing he needs something to prove his message he cuts the apron. Not having chalk on him and knowing he needs to get away from the secene quickly he skeedadles for his bolt hole. He has the apron and bloody organs so why not just wrap them up in the apron as he heads away from the scene. At home he leaves his knife and goodies, perhaps cleans up a tad and heads back out with apron and chalk. Covers pretty much everything and also explains the time gap.

[Wyatt Earp]

Had he intended to authenticate the Goulston Street message, he could have done so to far greater effect simply by slicing off one of Eddowes’ ears and leaving it in the vestibule.

Just a thought -- could have been snatched up by a cat or a dog.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Monty.

Thanks very much for the clarification, additional photos, and Goad map. Your help is much appreciated.

I agree with Hunter and Caz. The writer of the graffito did the sensible and the most noticeable thing with his white chalk, which was to write on the nice black dado.

I do believe that the graffito and the apron are connected, and it seems to me that each was placed so as to help "highlight" and draw attention to the other, thus making the combined effect even more dramatic.

As for the height of the writing, it was of course dictated by the height of the available writing surface. I can picture the writer crouching down a bit to hurriedly write it. People naturally crouch to some extent when engaged in furtive behaviors like avoiding pursuit, and there was an additional need to crouch because the chosen writing surface wasn't very high...makes sense to me.

Best regards,
Archaic

PS: Hi Moonbegger, just saw your post regarding the possibility that the graffito had been written earlier, before the Mitre Square murder. We discussed that on a thread a while back, but I'm afraid I can't remember which one. Perhaps someone else will know.

Personally I do think he used the apron and the graffito to "authenticate" each other, and also to tie in to the Berner Street murder earlier that night- hence the reference to Jews.

I also think it's possible that he had originally intended to write some kind of graffito in Dutfield's Yard, maybe on the big wooden gate, but was unable to because he had to flee. Having been thwarted in that regard, he wrote a graffito after the Mitre Square Murder...maybe what he would have written earlier at Berner Street, or maybe something different because he felt so angry at the Jews for Diemschutz interrupting him.

Hi Archaic

agree with this one
.. or maybe something different because he felt so angry at the Jews for Diemschutz interrupting him.[/QUOTE]
And not knowing he was going to be disturbed/interupted by a bunch of Jews (Schwartz, Diemschutz, Lawende and co) he did not start out the evening with Chalk on him. He had to get some. Which would also explain the time gap of the discovery of the apron/GSG from the time of Eddowes murder.

[Garry Wroe]

The Ripper was able to secret this large apron upon himself, therefore hiding a handful of organ would have been no problem.

The hiding of the body parts wouldn’t have been the issue, Tom. The problem would have been the transmission of fluids on to the killer’s clothing. The apron remnant would have overcome this problem, absorbing much of the fluid that would certainly have been discharged from freshly abstracted viscera.

Let’s look at it in a different way. Had the killer merely wished to clean his hands and knife, he could have done so at the crime scene by using Eddowes’ skirts. Had he intended to authenticate the Goulston Street message, he could have done so to far greater effect simply by slicing off one of Eddowes’ ears and leaving it in the vestibule. So why did he require the portion of apron if not to protect his clothing?

And he'd already done it once before and without taking any clothes from Chapman, so this cannot be the reason he removed the apron piece from Eddowes.

I would suggest otherwise, Tom. Successful serialists learn from experience and apply newfound knowledge to subsequent crimes. Thus if the killer had encountered the problem of body part fluid seepage at the time of the Hanbury Street killing, it should come as no surprise that he adopted appropriate countermeasures when faced with similar circumstances in Mitre Square.

[lynn cates]

bingo

Hello Chris.

"the piece of apron was large, the organs small, and once he had thown away the apron piece, what did he carry them in then? Also if taken to wipe his hands and knife, why carry the material all the way to Goulston Street -- why not discard it in Mitre Square or between the murder scene and the doorway."

Bingo.

Cheers.
LC

[Jon Guy]

Hi Chris

Also if taken to wipe his hands and knife, why carry the material all the way to Goulston Street -- why not discard it in Mitre Square or between the murder scene and the doorway.

Possibly because he was not going to stay by the body cleaning his hands or writing on walls. Just as been seen exiting Church Passage wiping his hands, or walking down Duke St wiping his hands would have been risky.
The safest option would be to quickly put distance between yourself and the crime scene and have a quick clean up somewhere quiet.

[Trevor Marriott]

Oh for fecks sake, Trev. It was white chalk, and the wall was only black up to 4ft high. Have you ever tried to write in chalk on a white surface?

I don't know why I bother sometimes. I love you Trev, but it's like talking to a backward earwig.

Love,

Caz
X

Ah but some men like to play stupid it gives you women more of a sense of feeling that you are superior to us

And I am never backward in coming forward !

[ChrisGeorge]

Apron piece was big, kidney is very small. And if the apron were some misguided attempt to carry the kidney, why would he cease to need it in the middle of Goulston Street? No, the killer had only one reason to take the apron and it certainly wasn't for the little organs.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Although it's often hypothesized that he took the apron piece to carry the organs -- uterus and kidney -- or to wipe his hands or knife, neither is that plausible. As you say, the piece of apron was large, the organs small, and once he had thown away the apron piece, what did he carry them in then? Also if taken to wipe his hands and knife, why carry the material all the way to Goulston Street -- why not discard it in Mitre Square or between the murder scene and the doorway.

[The Good Michael]

Apron piece was big, kidney is very small. And if the apron were some misguided attempt to carry the kidney, why would he cease to need it in the middle of Goulston Street? No, the killer had only one reason to take the apron and it certainly wasn't for the little organs.

Agreed. "Now where was that graffiti again?"

Mike

[fireskin]

Try it. It's not easy and if in a hurry it's even more difficult - unless, of course, you are 4ft tall or less.

Phil

Now there's a movie! Jack the Ripper as a little person. Would certainly put a whole new spin on it.

[caz]

Why would you stoop down when easier to stand upright unless Quasimodo wrote it

Oh for fecks sake, Trev. It was white chalk, and the wall was only black up to 4ft high. Have you ever tried to write in chalk on a white surface?

I don't know why I bother sometimes. I love you Trev, but it's like talking to a backward earwig.

Love,

Caz
X

[PhiltheBear]

At a tangent - I keep seeing statements to the effect that Wentworth Model Buildings were occupied by Jews. Can someone point me to evidence of that, please? That the message might have been seen by Jews and stirred up a 'riot' isn't at all the same as saying the building was occupied by Jews.