The Apron

[ChrisGeorge]

Hi Chris
Nice to meet you to.

It still doesnt tell us who cut the apron piece when and where it was cut and by whom and for what purpose. Like I said before if you eliminate the theory that it was cut by the killer to either wipe his hands on or his knife or to transport the organs. What are you left with ?

Hmmmmmmmmmmm and good old Dc Halse bless him what would this mystery be without him !

Hello again Trevor

First why would you eliminate the theory that the piece of apron was cut to carry organs or to wipe his knife or hands? I see no particular reason to eliminate any of those ideas as plausible.

If the graffito was written by the killer, the apron might have been taken to validate the inscription as being written by him....so the police would know the writing was by him. Of course the apron might have also been used for the above stated reasons as well as to validate the cryptic chalk inscripton.

Another reason the apron might have been taken was to put the police off his track. That is, I am going to leave the piece of apron in this location, some blocks east of my last murder, to make you think I live in Whitechapel or somewhere further east, e.g., Bethnal Green, but I am really heading home to the West End.

Best regards

Chris George

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Hunter,

These points have all been put to Trevor before, some to his face by yours truly.

He is just trying to wind us up.

Either that or he knows a lot less about women than he thinks he does.

Love,

Caz
X

They have been put and no i am not trying to wind you up but you and others who subsribe to the organ removal theory cant expalin how the killer could have done all of these things. Yet you keep saying all the time I belive the killer did this and I belive he did that. If you are going to argue against another theory all i am asking is to show how you think he could have done all of these things to prove you argument. because the facts simply dont stack up.

I am able to say how i believe he didnt but pardon the pub cuts both ways.

[Ben]

Hi Chris,

While I agree that the killer may have deposited the apron to validate the graffiti, it think it very unlikely that he went to such extremes to lay a false easterly trail. It meant heading a considerable distance out of his way and then doubling back towards gathering police traffic around the murder location. Commuter serialists are very rare, and for various other reasons, it is is highly unlikely that he operated from a base anywhere other than the East End. That's not to say he didn't lay a "false trail" in another sense - by implicating the Jewish community.

All the best,
Ben

[Fleetwood Mac]

The 'unlikely' I'm presenting in this case is that PC Long and DC Halse were honest and correct regarding their evidence.

According to PC Long, the graffiti and apron were not there one minute. The next minute, they were there. This is actual professional evidence that the two were left by the same person. Why is it so hard to accept now when it wasn't hard to accept in 1888?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Is that what they said?

Long observed the writing upon seeing the apron. All he knew was that the writing was there at 2.55.

Halse claimed there was no reason why he'd see the apron at 2.20, and it follows the writing, particularly as the wall was set off the footway.

So, no one saw the writing until Long came across it at 2.55.

I have a feeling you're going to pull out a press report to say otherwise.

That withstanding, the best you have is Halse saying a) it looked fresh b) he felt it would have been rubbed out by someone's shoulders if there for more than a day or two . I'm not convinced with the 'fresh' comment; he may have been a policeman but not an expert on the ins, outs and age of street graffiti. I'm even less convinced with the 'rubbing out': did people slide across walls as they walked in those days?

Tom, it is not professional evidence at all. It is the opinion of one man, who claimed it was 'fresh', and I doubt this one man had undertaken a course in chalk science.

It is very much different to a doctor estimating a time of death, as a doctor has training in such matters; a policeman does not have training in chalk activities.

[lynn cates]

Mr. Death

Hello Caz.

"while the case remains unsolved I will keep all my balls in the air"

Well, not if Mr. Death is to be believed. But you don't seem to be pompous, either. Perhaps he was wrong about Englishmen? (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[Hunter]

Hi Hunter,

These points have all been put to Trevor before, some to his face by yours truly.

He is just trying to wind us up.

Either that or he knows a lot less about women than he thinks he does.

I should have mentioned that Kate had a table knife and a spoon, but a table knife doesn't have a keen edge.

They have been put and no i am not trying to wind you up but you and others who subsribe to the organ removal theory cant expalin how the killer could have done all of these things. Yet you keep saying all the time I belive the killer did this and I belive he did that. If you are going to argue against another theory all i am asking is to show how you think he could have done all of these things to prove you argument. because the facts simply dont stack up.

After describing the extraction of the organs, Gordon Brown states that the killer had ample time to do it... about 5 minutes.
Sequeira stated that the killer had enough light to do it. They both meant the extraction of the organs as well as the other mutilations... and they both were there. The killer could see well enough to clip the eyelids.

Surely you believe the killer disemboweled her. Why would he do that? He removed a part of the colon and deliberately placed it at the left side. He sure was capable of removing body parts.

[Fleetwood Mac]

First why would you eliminate the theory that the piece of apron was cut to carry organs or to wipe his knife or hands? I see no particular reason to eliminate any of those ideas as plausible.

It's fair to say that the idea shouldn't be eliminated, but there is a fair bit of explaining to do to understand how the apron appeared between 2.20 and 2.55.

I can't believe that he ventured back onto the street.

So, what are we left with:

a) Long was mistaken when he passed at 2.20 or

b) Jack lived in the area but for whatever reason made his escape West, it was when he came back towards where he lived, between 2.20 and 2.55, that he dropped the apron. But then you'd have to argue that he had no other way of returning to where he lived, i.e. he couldn't have gone South or North, well out of the way of the police, and then turned either South or North to get to where he lived. Or you could argue that he lived very, very close to Goulston Street and so no matter how far out of the way he went he had to arrive in that area. But then why drop the apron if he was so close to home (the organs would have incriminated him)? Then you're left with someone scrawling a message that didn't really make sense and left the apron deliberately to show it was his work - but then why not write a clear statement? or

c) Someone else put the apron there or

d) Something along the lines of Trevor's theory.

To me, the simplest explanation is that Long was mistaken. Although it's not beyond the realms of reason that Tom is correct.

[Fleetwood Mac]

After describing the extraction of the organs, Gordon Brown states that the killer had ample time to do it... about 5 minutes.

Sequeira stated that the killer had enough light to do it. They both meant the extraction of the organs as well as the other mutilations... and they both were there. The killer could see well enough to clip the eyelids.

Surely you believe the killer disemboweled her. Why would he do that? He removed a part of the colon and deliberately placed it at the left side. He sure was capable of removing body parts.

I think 5 minutes at the very least was given. If you take Dr Brown's middle point of the range he gave, we're talking 10 minutes.

Again, something is odd in that the two doctors agreed 1.40 earliest time of death. If you believe Levy, they got up to leave at 1.30 and left 3 or 4 minutes later. It took them 5 minutes ish to get to Duke Street/Church Passage spot. So, we have Lawende stating being there at 1.35 and Levy at 1.38/1.39. Levy would tie in nicely if we assume that Jack and Eddowes made their way into the corner as soon as the 3 men were out of sight.

So killed at 1.40; Watkins is there at 1.44. 5 minutes at the earliest to perform.

Houdini would have struggled to match Jack for ability to achieve the improbable.

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

If, as we keep being told by the faithful, Kozzer was JtR, where did he learn his lightning surgical skills?

Regards,

Simon

[ChrisGeorge]

It's fair to say that the idea shouldn't be eliminated, but there is a fair bit of explaining to do to understand how the apron appeared between 2.20 and 2.55.

I can't believe that he ventured back onto the street.

So, what are we left with:

a) Long was mistaken when he passed at 2.20 or

b) Jack lived in the area but for whatever reason made his escape West, it was when he came back towards where he lived, between 2.20 and 2.55, that he dropped the apron. But then you'd have to argue that he had no other way of returning to where he lived, i.e. he couldn't have gone South or North, well out of the way of the police, and then turned either South or North to get to where he lived. Or you could argue that he lived very, very close to Goulston Street and so no matter how far out of the way he went he had to arrive in that area. But then why drop the apron if he was so close to home (the organs would have incriminated him)? Then you're left with someone scrawling a message that didn't really make sense and left the apron deliberately to show it was his work - but then why not write a clear statement? or

c) Someone else put the apron there or

d) Something along the lines of Trevor's theory.

To me, the simplest explanation is that Long was mistaken. Although it's not beyond the realms of reason that Tom is correct.

Hello Fleetwood Mac

The thoughtful dissertation here on Casebook by Jon Smyth (aka Wickerman), "A Piece of Apron, Some Chalk Graffiti and a Lost Hour", is well worth you reading if you are not aware of it.

All the best

Chris

[Phil Carter]

Hello Trevor,

DC Halse? It is a suggestion I made a long time ago that I believe, personally, needs to be looked at in a more thorough way.

I believe I am correct in stating the following (ap0ologies if I am incorrect here)

It is Halse that announces to the waiting policemen on their beats that following orders from above the beats are to be reversed.. therefore they and they alone know the beat schedule for the evening. He is therefore aware of the timing of all the beats and from what direction the policemen are coming from.

He just happens to be 30 secs away from the murder scene standing around chatting with 2 other policemen when the alarm is raised. He is therefore the first to arrive.

Upon his arrival in Mitre Sq. the nightwatchman retires back to his job, and Halse directs other policemen in scattered directions to look for an possible killer. He himself then heads off in a direction which takes him, by a curious route, out of the City Police area into a Met Police area. This particular street is where a fresh constable on his first night out of his usual Westminster area is patrolling. i.e. a City constable in a Met Police area.

They apparently, these two policemen- are in the same street at the same time, with lamps, yet neither mentions seeing the other one at 2.20 am.

Halse passes the spot where they apron piece is found later, but this has NOT been seen before by the constable passing the spot on HIS beat down the street.

Halse then returns, in a circular route, back to Mitre Square. Whilst he is then away, and at around half an hour later, the beat policeman finds the apron piece and the writing on the wall above it..something he did NOT see after the previous visit to the scene around 30-40 mins before.

Halse is the ONLY person who was at both the crime scene (various times), Goulston Street (before the discovery of the apron piece, and apparently unseen by another policeman being there, lamps and all..HE happens to be the one person who, at the mortuary where the body lay, notices the apron piece missing from a large pile of clothes and articles in abundance, and traveled back and forth all over the shop during the night.

Not withstanding the fact that he is a policeman (ssshhh, around here it isnt allowed to think the unthinkable that a policeman could be involved in any other way than sheer honesty of his duty...) he had the means and opportunity to have both dumped the apron piece at 2.20am in Goulston Street, having taken his iconic route and written something on the wall (remember the beat pc didn't see anything when HE passed the spot previously.. not until about 2.55 am)...note the beat pc must have been in front of Halse at the other end of the street if they were both there at the same time with Halse walking in the same direction behind the beat pc.. for they would have certainly SEEN each otherr if walking towards each other..with lamps...therefore the beat pc must have passed the spot where the writing was found before Halse got there....

Halse accompanies all and sundry all over the shop back and forth from Mitre Square before aginn turning up at the writing on the wall to witness it being expunged.

I am not suggesting Halse was the killer.. but if he wasn't a policeman someone would point out that the dumping of the apron piece would not neccessarily be done by the killer if the killer had an accomplice. And not withstanding that Halse is a policeman, he is the only known person to have been at all the places at the right time in order to have done exactly that. He knows the beats, knows the areas, knows the policemen, etc etc etc.

Fantasy, some will say. Ok. Fine. But I say that if you can't explain it, try finding someone with the opportunity to have guided the whole scenario.. Halse was the man who could have. Whether he did or not we will probably never know.. after all.. if Eddowes was killed for a reason.. (orders that night were that all policemen be on duty..what did the City Police know that no-one else did that would require, on THAT particular night, all men out on duty and not any other particular night?) then it would also explain the awful follow up by the city police after the crime if reference to the shoddy non-following up arounf the John Kelly scenario..dealt elsewhere and questioned by Simon Wood and myself.)

Apologies to all police apologists. Could it be that Halse was somehow involved? and if he was... it opens up a can of worms that nobody wants to go into.. because then, ladies and gents, what we have been told as the truth... simply isn't.


kindly


Phil

[Monty]

Hello Trevor,

DC Halse? It is a suggestion I made a long time ago that I believe, personally, needs to be looked at in a more thorough way.

I believe I am correct in stating the following (ap0ologies if I am incorrect here)

It is Halse that announces to the waiting policemen on their beats that following orders from above the beats are to be reversed.. therefore they and they alone know the beat schedule for the evening. He is therefore aware of the timing of all the beats and from what direction the policemen are coming from.

He just happens to be 30 secs away from the murder scene standing around chatting with 2 other policemen when the alarm is raised. He is therefore the first to arrive.

Upon his arrival in Mitre Sq. the nightwatchman retires back to his job, and Halse directs other policemen in scattered directions to look for an possible killer. He himself then heads off in a direction which takes him, by a curious route, out of the City Police area into a Met Police area. This particular street is where a fresh constable on his first night out of his usual Westminster area is patrolling. i.e. a City constable in a Met Police area.

They apparently, these two policemen- are in the same street at the same time, with lamps, yet neither mentions seeing the other one at 2.20 am.

Halse passes the spot where they apron piece is found later, but this has NOT been seen before by the constable passing the spot on HIS beat down the street.

Halse then returns, in a circular route, back to Mitre Square. Whilst he is then away, and at around half an hour later, the beat policeman finds the apron piece and the writing on the wall above it..something he did NOT see after the previous visit to the scene around 30-40 mins before.

Halse is the ONLY person who was at both the crime scene (various times), Goulston Street (before the discovery of the apron piece, and apparently unseen by another policeman being there, lamps and all..HE happens to be the one person who, at the mortuary where the body lay, notices the apron piece missing from a large pile of clothes and articles in abundance, and traveled back and forth all over the shop during the night.

Not withstanding the fact that he is a policeman (ssshhh, around here it isnt allowed to think the unthinkable that a policeman could be involved in any other way than sheer honesty of his duty...) he had the means and opportunity to have both dumped the apron piece at 2.20am in Goulston Street, having taken his iconic route and written something on the wall (remember the beat pc didn't see anything when HE passed the spot previously.. not until about 2.55 am)...note the beat pc must have been in front of Halse at the other end of the street if they were both there at the same time with Halse walking in the same direction behind the beat pc.. for they would have certainly SEEN each otherr if walking towards each other..with lamps...therefore the beat pc must have passed the spot where the writing was found before Halse got there....

Halse accompanies all and sundry all over the shop back and forth from Mitre Square before aginn turning up at the writing on the wall to witness it being expunged.

I am not suggesting Halse was the killer.. but if he wasn't a policeman someone would point out that the dumping of the apron piece would not neccessarily be done by the killer if the killer had an accomplice. And not withstanding that Halse is a policeman, he is the only known person to have been at all the places at the right time in order to have done exactly that. He knows the beats, knows the areas, knows the policemen, etc etc etc.

Fantasy, some will say. Ok. Fine. But I say that if you can't explain it, try finding someone with the opportunity to have guided the whole scenario.. Halse was the man who could have. Whether he did or not we will probably never know.. after all.. if Eddowes was killed for a reason.. (orders that night were that all policemen be on duty..what did the City Police know that no-one else did that would require, on THAT particular night, all men out on duty and not any other particular night?) then it would also explain the awful follow up by the city police after the crime if reference to the shoddy non-following up arounf the John Kelly scenario..dealt elsewhere and questioned by Simon Wood and myself.)

Apologies to all police apologists. Could it be that Halse was somehow involved? and if he was... it opens up a can of worms that nobody wants to go into.. because then, ladies and gents, what we have been told as the truth... simply isn't.


kindly


Phil

The reverse of beat would have either been issued by the Station Inspectors or Station Sergeants or the beat Sergeants. In some cases, by Smith himself.

Halse, CID would not have issued such an order because a) not CIDs concern and b) Halse was a constable and had no rank authority to issue such an instruction.

Halse was not the only CID man at the initial crime scene. He was with Marriott and Outram. It was decided they fanned out from the scene and Halse happened to head towards Whitechapel. As a crime had taken place, recent too, he was within his right to persue the perp.

We do not know Longs beat route. Therefore cannot state where he was. Both he and Halse say they were in Goulston St at 2.20am. Actually they approximated the time. PCs, when unaware of the exact time, round it off to the nearest 5 minutes. Its quite possible Long arrived after Halse. We know Halse stopped searched in Wentworth street before entering Goulston st, meaning he came into the street from the west and north.

Of course, this event of a stop search is convinienty ignored, as it doesn't fit Phils absurb scenario, throwing it into chaos.

Its also begs the question why Halse would do this.

Far from peoples views, I'm no Police apologist. I'm well aware of the faults, but seriously, the above is quite simply ridiculous and makes one wonder what direction this field is taking.

Monty.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hi Chris,

I wasn't, but I am now.

Thanks for the tip, I'll have a read tonight.

[Supe]

Phil,

This particular street is where a fresh constable on his first night out of his usual Westminster area is patrolling. i.e. a City constable in a Met Police area.

This is confusing. Are you suggesting Long was a City constable or a reference to City DC Halse? If the former, it is definitely wrong. As for the two -- Halse and Long -- supposedly being in Goulston Street at the same time, this has been discussed at length before, but as neither had recourse to watches, their timings are vague approximations. And that is if the seemingly less-than-competent Long was anywhere close to Goulston at 2:30 a.m.

Don.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Don,

What I am saying is if you start to apply time regulations for Halse and Long in their testimonies.. then TIME regulations apply all round to everyone's testimonies throughout the entire case.

We are TOLD that the testimony of a policeman in the bang on and trustworthy. We are told we have no reason to doubt their word. You cant have it both ways. IF they were in the same street at the same tiime as they both said, then they would either be walking towards each other, with lamps or not, and eventually meet, or they one would be behind the other. So ONE must have seen the other at some point, if we are to believe their inquest testimony.

The IMPORTANT bit here is the direction of Halse's walk.. if he followed Long's beat, i.e. the same direction, and was a distance behind him, Long didn't see the apron BEFORE 2.20a.m, nor the writing. Ok he just missed it perhaps. But hang on.. what if it WASN'T there when he passed the spot previously.. that he WAS a diligent cop, that he DID look in all the alleyways and doorways..and saw nothing... that means the apron piece was possibly placed there AFTER he passed the spot. Thereby he sees it next time around. Nothing wrong wiith all that--but it means the dropper of the apron came AFTER he had passed the place just before 2.20am. and before he next saw it at 2.55am. And Halse was where before 2.20am? Mitre Square, ordering policemen OUT in order to catch jtr. He was in the street GS, at 2.20..after Long passed the spot where the apron would have been.

I am not saying he DID and WAS an accomplice.. but picking up an apron piece and dumping it later is very possible.. especially given the times under oath. Whether the writing was there or not.. the placement seems deliberate.. if the writing wasn't there it was written by the dumper.. if the writing was there...it was known to have been there from before..hence the use of the dumping place to attract attention to it with said apron piece..

It may not have been the policeman who knew this of course.. could have been the killer himself- like I said.. we will never know.

But ruling out Halse in my honest opinion as being involved because he was a policeman is incorrect.

Take it whichever way you wish to. Makes no odds to me.

It is inquest testimony given by serving policemen, and we have no reason to doubt it, time wise, unless all timings from everyone is suspected as well on the same line as these two.


kindly


Phil.