The Apron

[Tom_Wescott]

I believe it was Halse, who said he imagined that a child in the area might have a clue as to the graffiti. Based on his official evidence, I think this was actually a reporter putting words in his mouth. But the suggestion was made, nevertheless.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Stephen Thomas]

I believe it was Halse, who said he imagined that a child in the area might have a clue as to the graffiti. Based on his official evidence, I think this was actually a reporter putting words in his mouth. But the suggestion was made, nevertheless.

Most interesting, Tom. The actual quote?

[Monty]

To be fair, I think you might be throwing stones at glass houses here. After all, you're among the throng who dismiss PC Long's sworn testimony regarding the missing 30 minutes between the Ripper fleeing Mitre Square and the apron and graffiti being discovered.

I dont dismiss Tom, I question.

At the end of the day, testimony is testimony, and I will alway lay with that unless overwhelming evidence the other way is provided.

Monty

[Monty]

Alderley and Wilmslow Advertiser
Friday, 12 October, 1888

Detective-Inspector Halse, one of the city police, proved that when the writing on the wall was reported to him he sent off an officer to make arrangements for having it photographed. Definite directions to this effect were given, but before a photographer could arrive, the Metropolitan Police Authorities, fearing that the words might lead to an outbreak against the Jews, had rubbed them out. - Mr. Burrows: Did no one suggest that it would be possible to rub out the word "Jews" only? - Witness: I suggested that the top line alone need be rubbed out, and the rest photographed. The words seemed to have been recently written in white chalk on the bricks, and were:- "The Juees (sic) are not the men that would be blamed for nothing." - The Foreman: Why did you allow the metropolitan police to rub the writing off? - Mr. Crawford: Did you not protest against its being rubbed out? - Witness: I did. - By the jury: The writing was like a schoolboy’s writing. Good round hand. - A juror regarded it as singular that the police did not make further inquiries at the lodging-house in the passage of which the apron was found - Mr. Crawford replied that a most vigilant search was made as soon as the matter came to the knowledge of the city police, but that, unfortunately, the apron was found by a member of the metropolitan force, and that some delay occurred.

Monty

[Trevor Marriott]

I dont dismiss Tom, I question.

At the end of the day, testimony is testimony, and I will alway lay with that unless overwhelming evidence the other way is provided.

Monty

You are correct but testimony is there to be tested sadly in this particular murder much of it was never tested as to proving or disproving its accuarcy and expanding on some of the major issues.

A prime example is the documented disagreement between the Doctors and to that point I should mention Dr Sequeira whos testimony you seek to rely on and to that which conflicts with Dr Brown.

Now I wil play devils advocate

Sequeira only attended the scene and no close examianation was carried out by any of the Doctors at that point of the body to see if any organs had been removed. Dr Brown later carried out the post mortem there is no evidence to suggest Dr Sequeria was present. If that be the case he cannot give any evidence as to whether or not any anatomical knowledge was used to remove the organs nor can he say that the killer did not have any design on the organs

However now looking at it another way if Dr Sequeria looked at the abdominal wounds at the scene and from what he saw came to the later conclusion that what was later suggested by Brown could not have been correct then it might add weight to the theory that the organs were in fact removed at the mortuary

You only have to look at the statements tendered in the inquest and see the many questions which should have been asked of the witnesses which were not. So to keep inferring that what was said in testimony has to be regarded as unquestionable is being blinkered.

But of course if what was said and written was not questioned and is now use to prop up the theories of some then I can understand why the testimony card keeps getting played.

[ChrisGeorge]

Alderley and Wilmslow Advertiser
Friday, 12 October, 1888

Detective-Inspector Halse, one of the city police, proved that when the writing on the wall was reported to him he sent off an officer to make arrangements for having it photographed. Definite directions to this effect were given, but before a photographer could arrive, the Metropolitan Police Authorities, fearing that the words might lead to an outbreak against the Jews, had rubbed them out. - Mr. Burrows: Did no one suggest that it would be possible to rub out the word "Jews" only? - Witness: I suggested that the top line alone need be rubbed out, and the rest photographed. The words seemed to have been recently written in white chalk on the bricks, and were:- "The Juees (sic) are not the men that would be blamed for nothing." - The Foreman: Why did you allow the metropolitan police to rub the writing off? - Mr. Crawford: Did you not protest against its being rubbed out? - Witness: I did. - By the jury: The writing was like a schoolboy’s writing. Good round hand. - A juror regarded it as singular that the police did not make further inquiries at the lodging-house in the passage of which the apron was found - Mr. Crawford replied that a most vigilant search was made as soon as the matter came to the knowledge of the city police, but that, unfortunately, the apron was found by a member of the metropolitan force, and that some delay occurred.

Monty

Thanks, Monty. Of course, as you will realise and others should too, "The writing was like a schoolboy’s writing. Good round hand" refers to the style or look of the writing not any idea that a schoolboy might have written it.

Chris

[John Bennett]

Sequeira only attended the scene and no close examianation was carried out by any of the Doctors at that point of the body to see if any organs had been removed. Dr Brown later carried out the post mortem there is no evidence to suggest Dr Sequeria was present.

I believe Dr. Sequeira observed Dr. Brown's post-mortem along with Drs. William Sedgewick Saunders and Bagster Phillips.

[Trevor Marriott]

I believe Dr. Sequeira observed Dr. Brown's post-mortem along with Drs. William Sedgewick Saunders and Bagster Phillips.

Not mentioned in the inquest testimony but I stand to be corrected after all i am only human

But it does seem strange that Sequeria disagreed

[Fleetwood Mac]

If this is a full length apron worn by CE, then I can see why he would need to cut the apron for access.

On reflection, I agree with Tom in that in the absence of an obvious flaw in Long's statements, it would seem a touch convenient to dismiss him in order to make the puzzle fit.

Although I am at a loss when attempting to understand why Long placed such significance to this apron. There was a market place nearby: surely it wasn't unusual to see rags and waste lying about. He didn't connect the apron to the Mitre Square murder; he assumed this was an unrelated murder. I suppose the obvious conclusion is that this rag was heavily bloodstained, i.e. sufficient blood to make this piece of rag out of the ordinary.

[Trevor Marriott]

If this is a full length apron worn by CE, then I can see why he would need to cut the apron for access.

On reflection, I agree with Tom in that in the absence of an obvious flaw in Long's statements, it would seem a touch convenient to dismiss him in order to make the puzzle fit.

Although I am at a loss when attempting to understand why Long placed such significance to this apron. There was a market place nearby: surely it wasn't unusual to see rags and waste lying about. He didn't connect the apron to the Mitre Square murder; he assumed this was an unrelated murder. I suppose the obvious conclusion is that this rag was heavily bloodstained, i.e. sufficient blood to make this piece of rag out of the ordinary.

What if he had been prompted to check for anyhting unusual ?

[Malcolm X]

Astute comments by both of your goodselves

yes but you're still an idiot, only joking

[Fleetwood Mac]

What if he had been prompted to check for anyhting unusual ?

Possible, Trevor. The City Police were certainly extra vigilant that night in terms of the amount of officers on the streets - could have been the same for the Met. I would say, however, it was Long's first night patrolling that beat. If you want vigilance in that area then surely you'd send a policemen experienced with that beat who knows all the nooks and crannies.

[Trevor Marriott]

Possible, Trevor. The City Police were certainly extra vigilant that night in terms of the amount of officers on the streets - could have been the same for the Met. I would say, however, it was Long's first night patrolling that beat. If you want vigilance in that area then surely you'd send a policemen experienced with that beat who knows all the nooks and crannies.

But what of he was prompted a short time before he found it ?

[ChrisGeorge]

If this is a full length apron worn by CE, then I can see why he would need to cut the apron for access.

I think you are wrong in that line of thinking, but. . .

Then why did he take the cut piece of apron with him?

[Lechmere]

The problem with the version of events that has the Ripper go away to a place a safety, clean up, come back out and dump the apron while possibly writing the graffiti is that this places him back in those streets while the hue and cry is going on and policemen like Halse were stopping and questioning any likely looking customer. I would guess having half a blood soaked apron about ones person would encourage any average copper to stop the culprit and ask questions.

It is often commented that it is remarkable that the Ripper managed to spirit himself away unseen yet presumably bloody after each attack. Yet he would have had usually several minutes head start and by the time the alarm was raised that would be ten minutes. He could be the best part of a mile away by the time a search was actually mounted. That explains why he wasn’t found by people alerted from the crime scene.
Yet re-entering the area with a major piece of incriminating evidence just so he can leave the apron and possibly inscribe the graffiti at that particular location makes no sense at all. He would have been incredibly lucky to avoid detection in and out and he would surely have ended up with more blood on his hands while depositing the apron.
Unless as some suggest he actually lived within a minute’s walk of that site in which case he is somewhat signposting his own locale. In geographical behavioural terms I would suggest that this would be so extremely unusual as to be discounted.

That is why it seems more likely that Long was wrong. If Long was a local policeman who went on to have a distinguished career then there would be less reason to doubt him. Long also got into verbal contortions during the inquest to cover his tracks.

Back to the graffiti:
Halse said it looked like it had been recently written.
It was said that had it been there any length of time it would have been brushed by people’s clothing as they passed in and out the doorway, and so smudged.
The buildings were very new and will have looked relatively clean and tidy.
How many people lived up that stairwell? I haven’t checked the 1891 census but at a guess there must have been at the very least 30. Don’t you suppose that had the graffiti been there a few days that one of them would have said so?