Pc Long and the piece of rag.

[Fisherman]

Two short points:

1. If the killer carried organs in the apron piece, then why would he dup it in the doorway and subsequently stuff the organs in his pockets, something he had presumably cut away the apron for in the first place?

If the killer carried the organs to his bolthole, took them out and stashed them there, only to THEN return outside and dump the apron piece - would that not direct a search of the area where the apron piece was found?
So did the killer do a longish walk before he dumped the apron piece? Does that seem reasonable when he could have stashed it somewhere at home to discard of it later, when the hullaballoo on the streets had died down?

2. If a passer-by decided to take a trophy from the murder site - accepting that he would be able to do so without being seen or heard - would he not take the full apron, instead of cutting it in pieces?
Or the hat?
Or something else that was not in pieces and not too large?

And if he really thought that a piece of the apron would make for a great souvenir - why would he not cut away a smaller part, that would be very easy to conceal?

[Fisherman]

On second thoughts, one has to wonder what had been speculated if the killer HAD taken the hat instead of a piece of the apron?

That the killer carried the innards in it, using it as a jug?

Perhaps we would even have had a thread out here by the name of "Hat" instead of "Hate". Wouldn´t that be a lot nicer?

[Charles Daniels]

Two short points:

1. If the killer carried organs in the apron piece, then why would he dup it in the doorway and subsequently stuff the organs in his pockets, something he had presumably cut away the apron for in the first place?

The only possible reason I could imagine is him thinking
"Hang on, this can be directly linked to the victim, better ditch this."

But I think this particular avenue of thought is probably unlikely.

If the killer carried the organs to his bolthole, took them out and stashed them there, only to THEN return outside and dump the apron piece - would that not direct a search of the area where the apron piece was found?

It would direct a search to the area where the apron was dropped.
So we have to assume some really unusual actions from the killer for this idea to work -- at best he walked pretty far in one direction, dumped them off, and then intentionally walked to Goulston street and dumped them there. Seems, weird to me. So not likely to become too wedded to that line of thought either...hmmm...

So did the killer do a longish walk before he dumped the apron piece? Does that seem reasonable when he could have stashed it somewhere at home to discard of it later, when the hullaballoo on the streets had died down?

Yeah, it doesn't make sense.
The only possibility I can see is plain paranoia.
"I have to get rid of this NOW!" being overriding his common sense.

So I think it's very unlikely.

In this way of thinking, the apron is some disposable piece of evidence against him which he never intended to keep long term.
Whereas, the organs, if he had them, would be kept or used in some way.

2. If a passer-by decided to take a trophy from the murder site - accepting that he would be able to do so without being seen or heard - would he not take the full apron, instead of cutting it in pieces?
Or the hat?
Or something else that was not in pieces and not too large?

And if he really thought that a piece of the apron would make for a great souvenir - why would he not cut away a smaller part, that would be very easy to conceal?

Yeah, I often just sort of think aloud and kick things around to see if they pass the laugh test. I think there are some killer strikes against the passer-by idea -- extremely narrow window of opportunity, weird selection of souvenir, and quick change of mind about the whole thing.

So I'm saying that idea is failing the laugh test right at this moment.

But my general feeling is -- kick these random ideas out there and see how and if they get shot down, or if someone comes up with a surprising angle on it you didn't consider.

[Charles Daniels]

As always, Charles, it boils down to which testimony you choose to go with. Some sources say that the apron piece had stains on it, but Long himself says that the apron was "covered in blood".

Ahhh, I've got to go back and re-read so much material.
Since Long was the first person to find it, he's in the best position to describe what the apron was like shortly after the murder was committed.

It was also said that one corner of the apron piece was "wet with blood". I therefore tend to think that when Long first spotted the apron, that corner was the part that presented itself to the viewer - in other words, it lay on top of the pile formed by the apron.

Yeah, a random crumpled up apron isn't something to catch the eye, but one wet with blood sure the hell would!

The question why the killer did not immediately head for home, but instead lingered somewhere in the vicinity of the murder area for a longish time, may or may not point to different circumstances. For example, if the killer did not live alone, but instead together with somebody, then he may have wanted to clean up before arriving back home, in order to minimize the risks of detection.

Yeah, that's one thing that always struck me. It's hard for me to imagine this guy being too tied to a doss house or common lodging house.
But I might be wrong, maybe it was easier to come and leave undetected than I would assume?

Likewise, if his home was situated some way away from the murder site and required a longish trek, then he would be at risk to run into a pc or two along the way, not least if he - as is generally believed - doubled back into MEPO areas, not far from where Stride had been killed earlier. That too could make him want to clean up before embarking on the risky trek.

Very good point!

It could also be that he had a bolthole where he stashed his trophies - if he actually did this, something than can be no certainty - and that this bolthole offered seclusion somewhere not too far from the murder site.
A final suggestion would be that the killer may have been set on yet another victim, and prowled the streets with that intention: if he could kill two, then why not three?

That last idea is kind of interesting, so an attempted spree killing event which sort of fizzled out.

At any rate, making the assumption that he must have left the murder site area and put as much distance between himself and that area as possible, is a very tenuous thing to do. In the end, it all boils down to the circumstances, and they remain hidden to us to a great deal.

All really good points!

I'll think through my long held, invisible-to-me, assumptions and see if any new ideas open up. Really have been enjoying all the messages on this forum so far, got me thinking about the case in new ways and visualizing the case much better.

[Harry D]

The very fact that he never wavered for a second about the rag suggests to me that this was not such a matter; here, he was certain..

And you don't see anything fishy with that (pardon the expression)?

[Abby Normal]

That's very valuable to know in weighing the testimony.
Having a witness who candidly admits to the limitations of their knowledge is very helpful indeed and more trustworthy than the one who has an answer for everything.

So seems the mystery here is -- we need a safe place for the killer to be hanging around for at least 35 minutes, with a piece of incriminating evidence on his person, and better yet for having some feeling of safety in going to Goulston Street and ditching the evidence where he did.

If the killer was using the apron to help him transport some trophy or other, then he might drop it off somewhere nearby and then leave this drop off point in order to ditch the apron. I guess it's possible he thinks better of having the apron and maybe transfers anything it may have contained elsewhere on his person.

But the apron itself only had spots of blood...so that's not terribly consistent with it being a parcel for organs or anything.

So yeah, lots of questions, I'll keep pondering.
Cheers mate!

HI Charles
I think that he started out with a rag in his pocket that night. but he used it to wipe his hands after the aborted stride murder (church street sighting) and tossed it.
he needed another one, so he cut part of eddowes apron. perhaps to wipe his hands, carry the organs, maybe he cut himself and used it for a bandage? who knows?

but I think once he got back to his bolt hole he decided to use it to his advantage, and went back out and "signed" the GSG with it.

[Fisherman]

And you don't see anything fishy with that (pardon the expression)?

Is it fishy if somebody says "I passed that doorway and looked into it thirtyfive minutes earlier, and there was no apron piece there then"?

If so, how? Because that is effectively how Long make sense.

Personally, I find it a lot fishier when people try to sweep the evidence under the rug.

[Harry D]

Is it fishy if somebody says "I passed that doorway and looked into it thirtyfive minutes earlier, and there was no apron piece there then"?

So, PC Long was noncommittal about everything else, but when it came to a key piece of evidence he was dead certain it wasn't there at 2.20am, therefore eliminating any doubt that he might have overlooked it. Hmmm.

[Fisherman]

So, PC Long was noncommittal about everything else, but when it came to a key piece of evidence he was dead certain it wasn't there at 2.20am, therefore eliminating any doubt that he might have overlooked it. Hmmm.

So that never happens to you? You are never uncertain about a number of things but certain of another? No?

You are either totally unsure of everything or dead certain about each and every matter, is that it? And anybody who differs is fishy, right?

And did I say that any doubt is eliminated by Longs certainty? I don´think I did, see - that´s just another example of you trying to place words in my mouth.

[Charles Daniels]

I as briefly skimming over some statements made about this piece of apron, and from the testimony I read, this wasn't a small piece of apron you might cut off to wash your hands with.

The statements I read were saying this was HALF the apron.

Now, seeing as an apron would likely be top of the chest to waist AND wrap around to be tied behind the back, or at least something very much like that -- then half of it is very serious business indeed.

I can't imagine using something that size as a bandage for a hand or fingers either.

Am I mis-reading something or thinking about this incorrectly. Because I'm now picturing a fairly substantial item.

[Fisherman]

I as briefly skimming over some statements made about this piece of apron, and from the testimony I read, this wasn't a small piece of apron you might cut off to wash your hands with.

The statements I read were saying this was HALF the apron.

Now, seeing as an apron would likely be top of the chest to waist AND wrap around to be tied behind the back, or at least something very much like that -- then half of it is very serious business indeed.

I can't imagine using something that size as a bandage for a hand or fingers either.

Am I mis-reading something or thinking about this incorrectly. Because I'm now picturing a fairly substantial item.

And so you should! However, I believe that Eddowes was not wearing the type of apron with a bib, but instead one that stretched from waist to feet only. That, however, was still a large apron, and half of it would be quite substantial.

[Trevor Marriott]

And so you should! However, I believe that Eddowes was not wearing the type of apron with a bib, but instead one that stretched from waist to feet only. That, however, was still a large apron, and half of it would be quite substantial.

It wasnt half, "it was a corner piece with a string attached" Dr Browns inquest testimony. So it was a relatively small piece.

If the killer wanted to cut a piece of her apron which she was said to have been wearing for whatever purpose, .Why, and how would he have been able to cut a corner piece from the top of the apron. Surely the bottom half of the apron would have been more accessible.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[DJA]

It wasnt half, "it was a corner piece with a string attached" Dr Browns inquest testimony. So it was a relatively small piece.

If the killer wanted to cut a piece of her apron which she was said to have been wearing for whatever purpose, .Why, and how would he have been able to cut a corner piece from the top of the apron. Surely the bottom half of the apron would have been more accessible.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Coroner] Was your attention called to the portion of the apron that was found in Goulston-street? - Yes. I fitted that portion which was spotted with blood to the remaining portion, which was still attached by the strings to the body.

[Fisherman]

It wasnt half, "it was a corner piece with a string attached" Dr Browns inquest testimony. So it was a relatively small piece.
www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Henry Smith:
"when we got the body to the mortuary, the first discovery we made was that about one-half of the apron was missing. It had been severed by a clean cut".

Brown does not say anything at all about the size of the piece of cloth. Smith does.

[Trevor Marriott]

[Coroner] Was your attention called to the portion of the apron that was found in Goulston-street? - Yes. I fitted that portion which was spotted with blood to the remaining portion, which was still attached by the strings to the body.

Both versions cannot be correct can they ?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk