writing on the wall

[Losmandris]

From looking at the picture and I stand to be corrected that the railings show in the pic were there to prevent anyone falling into the cellar areas below. In which case playing devils advocate, why didnt the killer simply discard the apron piece over the railings,? or in fact if it is accpted that the killer did not write the graffiti why wait so long before discarading the apron piece when there were plenty of places en route from Mitre Square?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

So many reasons. Aim, intention? Or maybe in the dark it was not obvious there was a big drop beyond the railings. I dont think any of us are in a situation where we can second guess what is going on in the mind of such a person. Let alone what was going on in the street at the time. All it could take is someone to walk past giving him a look up and down. He could have been past by someone panics, drops the organs down a drain or alleyway and then chucks the apron piece into a door way. Thinking by chucking the two away seperately the less the chance (all be it remote) of them being linked. On these kind of streets I think the chances of offal remaining in one place with out being taken by a scavenger, for a long time are pretty slim.

This is total speculation on my part. But after seeing the contempory pics, I think it is at least a possiblity.

[Losmandris]

Squire, if he'd wanted the thing to disappear, he could have thrown it down into one of those cellar recesses, down into the shadows and (very likely) all the other rubbish down there...

The apron piece was left in the entrance-way precisely because it was meant to be found.

Bests,

Mark D.

I don't think we can say that for certain though. As Wickerman points out above his aim may have been off, he could have been running or could have seen someone approaching and made a split second decision. Probably not thinking straight after the events of the night.

[Aethelwulf]

He is not totally incorrect because we know that the mortuary piece had a piece missing which was matched to the GS piece but there is no evidence that the two pieces ever made up full apron that is corroborated by how Dr Brown later matched the two pieces and the descriptions of the two pieces, and the fact that Collard uses the term apparently.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Doctored Whatsit]

Hi Jeff,

Excellent post, as we have come to expect from you.

I always find it a little curious that when Robinson took Kathy to Bishopsgate Police-station and she was asked her name she replied "Nothing". I wonder if she may have given the same reply in response to someone in the crowd of persons outside No. 29 High-street, Aldgate, or related her story to her future assailant after her release. It would attach a completely different meaning to "The Jews are not the men that will be blamed for nothing" than that which is normally applied, and confirm the assailant as the author of the GSG. Probably nothing (), but intriguing never the less.

Best regards, George

Hi George,

I think this way too! Obviously this could easily be a coincidence, but it is very intriguing nonetheless. Probably impossible to investigate further, unfortunately.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi all,

I've gone through the Eddowes Inquest files found on the site, and have extracted all references to her apron. Generally, the apron comes up either by people testifying she was wearing one, or with regards to the discovery of the portion in Goulston-Street.

I've bolded and underlined who is giving testimony, and generally give the opening bit too, to make it easier to find things if you wish to read the full testimony under the official documents. I've inserted a few comments between (** and **) markers at some points where I know the wording as given in this paper differs from wording found in other papers, or where something occurred to me that I thought worth mentioning (your opinion may vary on that, of course).

The following witnesses all give testimony that Kate was wearing an apron on the day she was murdered. Some state that the apron produced (with a piece missing) appeared to be the same one she had been wearing. Daniel Halse, while he doesn't directly say he saw her wearing an apron, does appear to indicate he noticed there was a missing piece while at the mortuary before having heard of the piece found in Goulston-street. To me, making such an observation without knowing about the GS piece suggests the apron was being worn by Eddowes (a cut up item in her possession would not garner such attention). However, it could be argued that he may have noticed it at the time by happenstance, and the significance became apparent once he heard of the piece found. As his testimony is suggestive, I've included him on the list, but I accept that he should be viewed as "possibly indicating she was wearing an apron" and not as him actually saying she was.

That means we have the following 6 (or 5 if you exclude Halse) witnesses testifying that Eddowes was wearing an apron, and some indicating that the apron she was wearing is the one that was shown to have a piece cut from it.

Frederick William Wilkinson
Inspector Collard
Dr. Frederick Gordon Brown
City-constable Lewis Robinson
Constable George Henry Hutt,
Daniel Halse, detective officer, City police

Testimonies at the Eddowes’ inquest:
Day 1, Thursday, October 4, 1888
(The Daily Telegraph, Friday, October 5, 1888, Page 3)
Frederick William Wilkinson deposed: I am deputy of the lodging-house at Flower and Dean-street. I have known the deceased and Kelly during the last seven years. …I believe on Saturday morning Kate was wearing an apron. Nothing unusual struck me about her dress. …

But his testimony doesnt prove that at the time she was murdered she was wearing an apron

Inspector Collard, of the City Police, said: At five minutes before two o'clock on Sunday morning last I received information at Bishopsgate-street Police-station that a woman had been murdered in Mitre-square. …
[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. (** In other papers this is reported as …corresponding with the apron apparently worn by the deceased. **; or words to that effect, the key being the word apparently)

Apparently is a key word is a key word and therefore creates a doubt he visited the crime scene surely he should have noticed if she was wearing and apron or not and been able to give a definitive statement.

Dr. Frederick Gordon Brown was then called, and deposed: I am surgeon to the City of London Police. …
[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. (**again, I believe this may be phrased differently in some papers **)

This is incorrcet his signed inquest testimony states "I fitted the piece of apron which had a string attached" note one string you cannot tie an apron with just one string

Day 2, Thursday, October 11, 1888
(The Daily Telegraph, October 12, 1888, Page 2)
City-constable Lewis Robinson, 931, deposed: At half-past eight, on the night of Saturday, Sept. 29, while on duty in High-street, Aldgate, I saw a crowd of persons outside No. 29, surrounding a woman whom I have since recognised as the deceased. …
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.
Constable George Henry Hutt, 968, City Police: I am gaoler at Bishopsgate station. On the night of Saturday, Sept. 29, at a quarter to ten o'clock, I took over our prisoners, among them the deceased. I visited her several times until five minutes to one on Sunday morning. …
[Coroner] In your opinion is that the apron the deceased was wearing? - To the best of my belief it is.

These officers gave their testimony 7 days after the event I have to ask how come they were able to remember after that length of time bearing in mind almost ever woman in London wore a white apron and they were not able to describe anything about her apron that made it stick in their minds -UNSAFE EVIDENCE.

On the subject of officers testimony I have to mention the fact that there is no inquesty testimony from Sgt Byfield who was the station sgt and who would have booked her into custody and also released her I would have expect him to have given some form of a statement after all she would have been standing in front of him when being booked in and standing in front of him when released.

Daniel Halse, detective officer, City police: On Saturday, Sept. 29, pursuant to instructions received at the central office in Old Jewry, I directed a number of police in plain clothes to patrol the streets of the City all night. …
I came through Goulston-street about twenty minutes past two, and then returned to Mitre-square, subsequently going to the mortuary. I saw the deceased, and noticed that a portion of her apron was missing. I accompanied Major Smith back to Mitre-square, when we heard that a piece of apron had been found in Goulston-street. (** This implies that Halse saw Eddowes at the mortuary and noticed the missing piece of her apron before being aware that a portion was later found in Goulston Street. That in turn suggests that the apron was something she was wearing, as otherwise it would be unremarkable, although this series of inferences are not unquestionable **). … - Jeff

He is not totally incorrect because we know that the mortuary piece had a piece missing which was matched to the GS piece but there is no evidence that the two pieces ever made up full apron that is corroborated by how Dr Brown later matched the two pieces and the descriptions of the two pieces, and the fact that Collard uses the term apparently.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Have to say Trevor that even bleeding ever so slightly (I.e. last day of menstuation) as you propose would have shown externally without any sanitary protection, but if your propositition is the amount of blood on the GS apron piece was menstrual then it is not likely to be the end of that part of a womans cycle. I dont wish to be too graphic so I shall leave it that the blood on the apron was unlikely to be from last moments of menstruation. These are only my thoughts from Dr Brown's statement, her possesion list, my own experience as a woman and the timing of events etc. I'm still trying to find MJK's non existent knife so I have bigger fish (and potatoes) to fry lol.

Helen x

You cannot compare the menstruation process in modern day women to the Victorian street women, their lives, health and the way they existed are totally differnet. That is why the consulatnat gynecologist stated that instead of having full on periods the blood fllow would be much less more in the way of spotting.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Please see replies set out below

Hi Trevor,

Please correct me if I am mistaken, but it seems that in your theory Kathy is wearing an apron when she is incarcerated. Sometime after that she realises that she has commenced her menstrual cycle and cuts up the apron she was wearing to obtain a sanitary napkin. When she is released she heads in the opposite direction to that of her home and of Goulston St, so presumably the start of her cycle was after that departure. She deposits the portion of the apron at Goulston St and then walks to Mitre Square....[End of correctable assumptions]

The sugestion that she was wearing an apron when arrested comes from the officer who arrested her, but his evidence that he gave at the inquest to that effect is questionable as he gave that evidence 7 days later, and as almost every woman at the time wore white aprons there is nothing to show why 7 days later he recalled specifically her wearing an apron. Again playing devils advocate for those who readily accept that police officers testimony. I pointed out that theoretically as she was in possession of a knife she could have cut the apron herself. But I dont believe this to be that case

Collard testified: in my presence Sergeant Jones picked up from the foot way by the left side of the deceased three small black buttons, such as are generally used for boots, a small metal button, a common metal thimble, and a small penny mustard tin containing two pawn-tickets and I produce a portion of the apron which deceased was apparently wearing which had been cut through and was found outside her dress.

You have clearly confused yourself and not read Collards inquest testimony fully or completlely misunderstood the content the way you have written it is misleading to readers. The Buttons and other items were found at the scene.

His reference to the apron was as a result of what took place later at the mortuary when the body was stripped it was not found beside the body at the crime scene, and the term he uses "apperently wearing" is open to interpretation and discussion.

On the autopsy report, all these items are grouped together under the heading of possessions:

• 1 piece of old white apron with repair
• Several buttons and a thimble
• Mustard tin containing two pawn tickets,

Also in the list of possessions is

• 12 pieces white rag, some slightly bloodstained

So the items found near, but not on, the body are listed together as possessions.

I dont know what report you are referring to but Collards official list of clothing and possessions does not include the items found at the crime scene

My question to you is...Why would Kathy cut up the apron she was wearing for the purpose of a sanitary napkin when she had 12 pieces of white rag, some slightly bloodstained that she could have used for the purpose?

As per my previous reply on this topic, I dont believe she cut up the apron, the two pieces of apron referred to one being the mortuary piece and the other the GS piece I beleive had been cut previoulsy from an old white apron and she was in poossession of two of the pieces that had come form that old apron.

We know that the two pieces matched up, but there is no evidence to show that when matched they made up a full apron

As to the 12 pieces referred to eddowes was described as being a hawker we do not know the quality of these 12 piece it is quite possible that she had them in her possession to sell in which case if they were of good quality she would not want to use them as sanitary devices

It seems obvious to me that the apron was cut by the Ripper early in his attack on Eddowes. He took half with him and dropped the other half next to her body. YMMV.

Well you are obvioulsy wrong on that point

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

Hi Jeff,

Excellent post, as we have come to expect from you.

I always find it a little curious that when Robinson took Kathy to Bishopsgate Police-station and she was asked her name she replied "Nothing". I wonder if she may have given the same reply in response to someone in the crowd of persons outside No. 29 High-street, Aldgate, or related her story to her future assailant after her release. It would attach a completely different meaning to "The Jews are not the men that will be blamed for nothing" than that which is normally applied, and confirm the assailant as the author of the GSG. Probably nothing (), but intriguing never the less.

Best regards, George

[JeffHamm]

Hi all,

I've gone through the Eddowes Inquest files found on the site, and have extracted all references to her apron. Generally, the apron comes up either by people testifying she was wearing one, or with regards to the discovery of the portion in Goulston-Street.

I've bolded and underlined who is giving testimony, and generally give the opening bit too, to make it easier to find things if you wish to read the full testimony under the official documents. I've inserted a few comments between (** and **) markers at some points where I know the wording as given in this paper differs from wording found in other papers, or where something occurred to me that I thought worth mentioning (your opinion may vary on that, of course).

The following witnesses all give testimony that Kate was wearing an apron on the day she was murdered. Some state that the apron produced (with a piece missing) appeared to be the same one she had been wearing. Daniel Halse, while he doesn't directly say he saw her wearing an apron, does appear to indicate he noticed there was a missing piece while at the mortuary before having heard of the piece found in Goulston-street. To me, making such an observation without knowing about the GS piece suggests the apron was being worn by Eddowes (a cut up item in her possession would not garner such attention). However, it could be argued that he may have noticed it at the time by happenstance, and the significance became apparent once he heard of the piece found. As his testimony is suggestive, I've included him on the list, but I accept that he should be viewed as "possibly indicating she was wearing an apron" and not as him actually saying she was.

That means we have the following 6 (or 5 if you exclude Halse) witnesses testifying that Eddowes was wearing an apron, and some indicating that the apron she was wearing is the one that was shown to have a piece cut from it.

Frederick William Wilkinson
Inspector Collard
Dr. Frederick Gordon Brown
City-constable Lewis Robinson
Constable George Henry Hutt,
Daniel Halse, detective officer, City police

Testimonies at the Eddowes’ inquest:
Day 1, Thursday, October 4, 1888
(The Daily Telegraph, Friday, October 5, 1888, Page 3)
Frederick William Wilkinson deposed: I am deputy of the lodging-house at Flower and Dean-street. I have known the deceased and Kelly during the last seven years. …I believe on Saturday morning Kate was wearing an apron. Nothing unusual struck me about her dress. …
Inspector Collard, of the City Police, said: At five minutes before two o'clock on Sunday morning last I received information at Bishopsgate-street Police-station that a woman had been murdered in Mitre-square. …
[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. (** In other papers this is reported as …corresponding with the apron apparently worn by the deceased. **; or words to that effect, the key being the word apparently)
Dr. Frederick Gordon Brown was then called, and deposed: I am surgeon to the City of London Police. …
[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. (**again, I believe this may be phrased differently in some papers **)
Day 2, Thursday, October 11, 1888
(The Daily Telegraph, October 12, 1888, Page 2)
City-constable Lewis Robinson, 931, deposed: At half-past eight, on the night of Saturday, Sept. 29, while on duty in High-street, Aldgate, I saw a crowd of persons outside No. 29, surrounding a woman whom I have since recognised as the deceased. …
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.
Constable George Henry Hutt, 968, City Police: I am gaoler at Bishopsgate station. On the night of Saturday, Sept. 29, at a quarter to ten o'clock, I took over our prisoners, among them the deceased. I visited her several times until five minutes to one on Sunday morning. …
[Coroner] In your opinion is that the apron the deceased was wearing? - To the best of my belief it is.

While Constable Long doesn’t testify to Eddowes’ wearing the apron, I’m including his description of the discovery of the portion in Goulston-street for completeness:

Constable Alfred Long, 254 A, Metropolitan police: I was on duty in Goulston-street, Whitechapel, on Sunday morning, Sept. 30, and about five minutes to three o'clock I found a portion of a white apron (produced). There were recent stains of blood on it. The apron was lying in the passage leading to the staircase of Nos. 106 to 119, a model dwelling-house. Above on the wall was written in chalk, "The Jews are the men that will not be blamed for nothing." I at once searched the staircase and areas of the building, but did not find anything else. I took the apron to Commercial-road Police-station and reported to the inspector on duty.
[Coroner] Had you been past that spot previously to your discovering the apron? - I passed about twenty minutes past two o'clock.
[Coroner] Are you able to say whether the apron was there then? - It was not.
Mr. Crawford: As to the writing on the wall, have you not put a "not" in the wrong place? Were not the words, "The Jews are not the men that will be blamed for nothing"? - I believe the words were as I have stated.
[Coroner] Was not the word "Jews" spelt "Juwes?" - It may have been.
[Coroner] Yet you did not tell us that in the first place. Did you make an entry of the words at the time? - Yes, in my pocket-book. Is it possible that you have put the "not" in the wrong place? - It is possible, but I do not think that I have.
[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. (** Some papers do not include “with blood” **)
[Coroner] How came you to observe the writing on the wall? - I saw it while trying to discover whether there were any marks of blood about.
[Coroner] Did the writing appear to have been recently done? - I could not form an opinion. …
Daniel Halse, detective officer, City police: On Saturday, Sept. 29, pursuant to instructions received at the central office in Old Jewry, I directed a number of police in plain clothes to patrol the streets of the City all night. …
I came through Goulston-street about twenty minutes past two, and then returned to Mitre-square, subsequently going to the mortuary. I saw the deceased, and noticed that a portion of her apron was missing. I accompanied Major Smith back to Mitre-square, when we heard that a piece of apron had been found in Goulston-street. (** This implies that Halse saw Eddowes at the mortuary and noticed the missing piece of her apron before being aware that a portion was later found in Goulston Street. That in turn suggests that the apron was something she was wearing, as otherwise it would be unremarkable, although this series of inferences are not unquestionable **). …
By Mr. Crawford: At twenty minutes past two o'clock I passed over the spot where the piece of apron was found, but did not notice anything then. I should not necessarily have seen the piece of apron.
A Juror: It seems surprising that a policeman should have found the piece of apron in the passage of the buildings, and yet made no inquiries in the buildings themselves. There was a clue up to that point, and then it was altogether lost.
Mr. Crawford: As to the premises being searched, I have in court members of the City police who did make diligent search in every part of the tenements the moment the matter came to their knowledge. But unfortunately it did not come to their knowledge until two hours after. There was thus delay, and the man who discovered the piece of apron is a member of the Metropolitan police.
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. …
[Coroner] What did you do when you found the piece of apron? - I at once searched the staircases leading to the buildings.
A Juror: Having examined the apron and the writing, did it not occur to you that it would be wise to search the dwelling? - I did what I thought was right under the circumstances.

- Jeff

[GBinOz]

Hi Trevor,

Please correct me if I am mistaken, but it seems that in your theory Kathy is wearing an apron when she is incarcerated. Sometime after that she realises that she has commenced her menstrual cycle and cuts up the apron she was wearing to obtain a sanitary napkin. When she is released she heads in the opposite direction to that of her home and of Goulston St, so presumably the start of her cycle was after that departure. She deposits the portion of the apron at Goulston St and then walks to Mitre Square....[End of correctable assumptions]

Collard testified: in my presence Sergeant Jones picked up from the foot way by the left side of the deceased three small black buttons, such as are generally used for boots, a small metal button, a common metal thimble, and a small penny mustard tin containing two pawn-tickets and I produce a portion of the apron which deceased was apparently wearing which had been cut through and was found outside her dress.

On the autopsy report, all these items are grouped together under the heading of possessions:

• 1 piece of old white apron with repair
• Several buttons and a thimble
• Mustard tin containing two pawn tickets,

Also in the list of possessions is

• 12 pieces white rag, some slightly bloodstained

So the items found near, but not on, the body are listed together as possessions.

My question to you is...Why would Kathy cut up the apron she was wearing for the purpose of a sanitary napkin when she had 12 pieces of white rag, some slightly bloodstained that she could have used for the purpose?

It seems obvious to me that the apron was cut by the Ripper early in his attack on Eddowes. He took half with him and dropped the other half next to her body. YMMV.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

Well let me point out something you clearly have been misled or you have mis-interpreted about and that is there is no evidence that an apron piece was found beside the body.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

Collard's testimony: “I produce a portion of the apron which deceased was apparently wearing which had been cut through and was found outside her dress – "

To my mind this is clear enough, but you probably have a different interpretation which I would not accept as relegation to "no evidence".

During our discussion on another thread I proposed that JtR may have cut himself at the Eddowes murder and used the apron piece as a bandage, an idea that you emphatically dismissed. I recently found this from the Star 12 October, 1888:

"A Suspicious Infirmary Patient.

A report was current late last night that the police suspect a man who is at present a patient in an East-end infirmary. He has been admitted since the commission of the last murder. Owing to his suspicious behavior their attention was directed to him. Detectives are making inquiries, and he is kept under surveillance."

Cheers, George

[harry]

You are correct Trevor.The entrance to the cellar,in some houses of that era,was outside.As it was terraced housing,and most abbuted the pavement,t was easier to access by delivery people.

[Parisi North Humber]

Have to say Trevor that even bleeding ever so slightly (I.e. last day of menstuation) as you propose would have shown externally without any sanitary protection, but if your propositition is the amount of blood on the GS apron piece was menstrual then it is not likely to be the end of that part of a womans cycle. I dont wish to be too graphic so I shall leave it that the blood on the apron was unlikely to be from last moments of menstruation. These are only my thoughts from Dr Brown's statement, her possesion list, my own experience as a woman and the timing of events etc. I'm still trying to find MJK's non existent knife so I have bigger fish (and potatoes) to fry lol.

Helen x

[Wickerman]

From looking at the picture and I stand to be corrected that the railings show in the pic were there to prevent anyone falling into the cellar areas below.

Well yes, of course.
Although we had one at the front of our terrace house, I wasn't sure what it was called. You say 'cellar', I associate a cellar as the rooms within the house. Going down into the cellar is what you did from the inside, it's where the coal was deposited & where there was an old kitchen, in our house at least.
But, we couldn't get outside into that hole/pit, or whatever it was, so I've never known what it was called.

...In which case playing devils advocate, why didnt the killer simply discard the apron piece over the railings,?

We don't know how fast he was running (if he was?), when he threw? it. Maybe his aim was off, sorta argues against it being Druitt I suppose

....or in fact if it is accpted that the killer did not write the graffiti why wait so long before discarading the apron piece when there were plenty of places en route from Mitre Square?

Well, I've asked that same question myself, but that was when it was believed he only took the piece of apron to clean his hands.

In that circumstance carrying it 1500 ft makes no sense at all. However, if he had the organs wrapped inside, and saw a constable approaching, he might have thrown the bundle, intending it to go inside the archway, but it hit the wall and the organs spilled out and fell into the 'cellar' (or open pit behind the railings). From what we can tell, the police were not looking for spilled organs.

But, if that was the scenario, we must ask why was he still carrying the bundle after 2:20 am, when all police were actively patrolling the streets (it was not there at 2:20 when PC Long passed the entry).
However, questions are not answers, so we can't dismiss a hypothesis just because it raises more questions.

[Mark J D]

The way I see it is that he runs or strolls past the entrance and flings the apron into it, attempting to chuck as far in as possible for it not to be seen.

Squire, if he'd wanted the thing to disappear, he could have thrown it down into one of those cellar recesses, down into the shadows and (very likely) all the other rubbish down there...

The apron piece was left in the entrance-way precisely because it was meant to be found.

Bests,

Mark D.