The Bloody Piece of Apron (Recovered)

[Sam Flynn]

The apron piece was described as being spotted with blood that is not consisietnt with wiping hands or a knife on.

That may be true, Trev - if it had been consistently described as being "spotted with blood", that is. Whereas Dr Brown, at the inquest, indeed uses the phrase "spotted with blood", he also states that the apron had "smears of blood on one side... as if a hand or knife had been wiped on it".

[Trevor Marriott]

The apron piece was described as being spotted with blood that is not consisietnt with wiping hands or a knife on.

But let not get into this old chestnut again this topic has been (pardon the pun) done to death and now is getting boring

[Ben]

I think "only" was the operative word here.

It's perfectly feasible that it was used for hand-wiping, but to argue that this was its only purpose is less viable, I'd say.

[Monty]

Yeah, still viable.

The apron itself, according to descriptions, showed signs of a wiping act.

The distance between the two is covered in minutes. A swift retreat to the solace of a entrance thats a safe enough distance away, quick clean up and away.

That not viable?

[Wickerman]

The same detail superimposed on modern London, some streets have been eliminated.
(The birdseye view came from the Casebook, courtesy of some unnamed soul, I merely added the coloured lines.)

[Wickerman]

Here's a period map, 1894. The red line indicates the distance between where the piece of apron was found (top right), taken from the body (bottom left).
The blue line outlines one of the suggested routes taken by the killer, but not the only route.
Is the suggestion that he only took the rag to wipe his hands, truely viable?

[Monty]

Wickerman,

In Longs report he states that he found the apron and noted, in his opinion, that it was blood marked. He therefore assumed a murder had taken place on the premises and searched the wall above the apron for further blood marks. It was then he found the writing prior to conducting a building search.

Re Halse and Longs position, my view matches with yours.

Monty

[Wickerman]

We don't, actually, Jon. Long himself only found the graffito whilst he searched the entrance - if it had been directly above the apron, he'd have seen it almost immediately, rather than during his subsequent examination of the hallway for clues.

Sam, is P.C. Long actually quoted anywhere that he found the chalk writing after a subsequent search of the premises?

The reason I ask is, I have the direct quote that says he saw it "above" the apron.. "..about 2.55am I found a portion of a womans apron which I produced, there appeared blood stains on it one portion was wet lying in a passage leading to the staircases of 108 - 119 model dwelling house. Above it on the wall was written in chalk - the jews are the men that will not be blamed for nothing..."
The Daily Telegraph, Oct 12th, 1888

He didn't say that he stepped up onto the kerb either, but he must have at some point But the passageway leading to the stairs is not the "open doorway or archway visible to anyone in the street", given as the graffito's location by Warren.

One of our resident authorities, Stewart Evans (Hi Stewart) provides a few paragraphs on police procedure in his, JtR - Scotland Yard Investigates. He writes that while on their beat the local PC's would walk the pavement/sidewalk at the kerb side during daylight hours (to be seen), but at night they would walk along the inside (so as not to be seen), next to the buildings so as to check doors and windows more easily (p.14).

Now, we do know those pavements/sidewalks were very narrow in many places, so perhaps those procedures were more applicable to wide sidewalks.
My point being we should not envisage P.C. Long on patrol walking up the center of the street.
Det. Halse may have hurried down the center of the street, but he was not on duty patrol.

Perhaps we are getting a little too deep into the minutae here, but I'm saying he should easily have seen both the apron and, on looking above, seen the graffiti, from walking along the very narrow sidewalk. And thats how I interpret his words at the inquest.

[Sam Flynn]

And we know the graffiti was directly above the apron

We don't, actually, Jon. Long himself only found the graffito whilst he searched the entrance - if it had been directly above the apron, he'd have seen it almost immediately, rather than during his subsequent examination of the hallway for clues.

:-) Strange remark considering this is the man who didn't see it, and who didn't find it!

Fair do's!! Halse was at least at the scene, and presumably spoke with Long, or at least had heard where the apron was found, in order for him to have made his (NB: uncontradicted) inquest statement that "It was in the building".

PC Long did not say he stepped into the archway as part of his duties

He didn't say that he stepped up onto the kerb either, but he must have at some point

what he did say was the apron was "in the passageway leading to the stairs".

But the passageway leading to the stairs is not the "open doorway or archway visible to anyone in the street", given as the graffito's location by Warren.

[Sam Flynn]

Taken over from "Inverted V" thread

Hi Jon,

Several layers of outer clothing, including skirts and chemise, had been cut down the middle, some through the waistband. Although it's not definitively stated, it's possible that her apron had already been cut at least partway, and in similar fashion, to these.

The apron is only laid over her front, he pulls up the lower half and throws it aside, presumably over her head and shoulders. Neither you nor me would waist time trying to cut through a loose apron when all we have to do is pull it aside.

we have the snippet of inquest reportage that states that the liberated apron piece was married up to a piece of apron that was still attached by strings to Eddowes' body. This rather suggests that the Goulston Street fragment was taken from the lower part of the apron, and that a horizontal cut was required ....[edit]....

Correct, that was all you needed to write - the bit about a vertical cut I deleted, not required

Not if the vertical cut was already there, Jon. My point is that it may have already been part cut-through, together with some other garments - the initial "vertical", or zig-zag, cut (diagram B) being inflicted to the "pristine" apron (diagram A), whereupon a rather shorter horizontal cut (blue line in diagram C) would have been enough to liberate the area of cloth that turned up in Goulston Street.



(Thought it'd be better to transfer this to an "apron" thread.)

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,It's not a question of "doubt", so much as one of assessing whether a piece of white(ish) material wouldn't be overlooked as just another piece of litter.

Hi Sam.
You will notice the distinct lack of garbage in the period photo's we have here at Casebook. For the most part the streets are remarkably litter-free, as compared with today. Not so much was thrown away in the east-end, everything had its use. But I do understand the point you are trying to make.

Halse also states that he "might well" not have noticed the apron "because it was in the building".

:-) Strange remark considering this is the man who didn't see it, and who didn't find it!
PC Long did not say he stepped into the archway as part of his duties, what he did say was the apron was "in the passageway leading to the stairs".

Charles Warren, while not saying where the apron was found, does write that with reference to the graffiti, "The writing was on the jamb of the open archway or doorway visible to anybody in the street and could not be covered up without danger of the covering being torn off at once.....'

And we know the graffiti was directly above the apron, therefore we must deduce... "in the open doorway, visible to anyone in the street".

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Jon,

We've had some who prefer to believe PC Long was just mistaken, perhaps inexperienced, and that might be so to a point. What about Det. Halse, was he also mistaken or was he just covering his ass? There may be a case for doubting PC Long, but its not so simple for Det. Halse.

It's not a question of "doubt", so much as one of assessing whether a piece of white(ish) material wouldn't be overlooked as just another piece of litter.

If the apron were located on a particular side of the entranceway - say on the north - and the two policemen were headed south (as Halse probably was, as he was heading for Mitre Square from Wentworth St at the time), then is it really all that remarkable that it might have been overlooked? Halse's signed inquest statement, after all, was to the effect that he'd passed the spot at 2:20 but "did not notice anything".

Halse also states that he "might well" not have noticed the apron "because it was in the building". The question of his covering his arse doesn't really arise for, whether the apron was there or not, he was being quite candid in his testimony.

The inquest records unfortunately don't seem to tell us the apron's dimensions or whether, Smith and Jones/Lloyd notwithstanding, fully half of it had indeed been cut away. However, Halse's testimony at least contains a reasonable pointer to the possibility that the apron was largely out of view, irrespective of its size.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Chava,

The policeman patrols the area, doesn't notice the cloth, but then back around an hour later, he does notice the cloth. He also notices the graffito. So what drew his eye over?

Long reports seeing the cloth first, and only discovered the graffiti during his subsequent examination of the entranceway.

[Monty]

Point of information

Long was not inexperience in police work, having been in the force for 4 years before treading that beat in Whitechapel.

It was a new beat to him but that would not have altered his course of action with regards procedure.

[Chava]

OK, but wait a second. The policeman patrols the area, doesn't notice the cloth, but then back around an hour later, he does notice the cloth. He also notices the graffito. So what drew his eye over? Did he see the graffito, think 'I didn't see that before' and then see the cloth? Did he see the cloth, think 'I didn't see that before' and then notice the graffito? I can see the PC not really noticing the cloth, but then seeing the apparently new graffito and the cloth right underneath it. But that means that we cannot be sure that the cloth occurred at the same time as the graffito. The cloth is clearly evidence--it's got blood and excrement all over it and it came from Eddowes' clothing. The graffito could be totally irrelevant. But if that's the case, I can't see the graffito being written after the cloth was dropped. It had to have been there before. It would take a fairly dedicated graffito-writer to stand over a piece of cloth stinking of sh*t while he drew his slogan on the wall. So either the policeman didn't notice the graffito or the cloth--both of which were in place already. Or he didn't notice the graffito, and the cloth was dropped later. Which kind of begs the question we've already asked over and over. Why the delay? The cloth could have been used to carry his trophy. But I strongly suspect he comes prepared with something for that. However he could have dropped his handy little portatrophy in the Liz Stride melee. In which case it's possible he uses whatever comes to hand in the Eddowes killing. Takes it back to wherever he keeps his stuff. And then ventures out to get rid of it.