The Apron Again

[Chava]

Thank you for the kind words Phil.

It's certainly possible that she may have used the rag herself given that, I believe, the menstrual rags she had on her person were somewhat stained with blood already. It's possible she stopped off in a dark alley to relieve herself and wipe herself up a bit and that could explain the traces of fecal matter found on the cloth. Especially if that relief included what we were taught to call a 'Number Two' and she had no other way of cleaning herself. That could explain the bloodstain pattern as well.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hi Monty
By what Caz said and also:
-Any visible graffiti with anything that could possibly say something negative about jews(or even with the word in it) would have been wiped clean as soon as it was seen by a resident.
-A police officer said it looked new.
-The constable who found it did not see it the previous time around
-it is probable it was written the same time the apron was dropped there, which was that night.

Of course this is all just speculation and just my opinion.

Abby,

According to PC Long he noticed the chalk only upon searching for blood. This would suggest there is no reason he would have seen it first time round.

Which does a beg a related question: the chalk was white on a black background; it was on the 'jamb of the doorway'; how did he miss it when he walked through the arch? According to his own statement, he discovered the apron, searched for blood, and then noticed the chalk.

The police officer said it looked new? I wonder how he was able to determine 2 hour old chalk from two day old chalk.

[Lechmere]

If the lamp was south of the relevant entrance – as seem to be the case – and the graffiti was on the right hand jamb, then it would have been more difficult to see from any dim light cast by the lamp.
Also as I think Long’s beat took him up Goulston Street from south to north he would have been even less likely to see the graffiti before seeing the apron.

On the question of the height of the writing, I believe the black part of the wall only reached up to about 4 or 5 feet which gives an indication of the maximum height at which it could have been written. You can still observe the height of the black bricks on some parts of the building. This is a bit lower than shoulder height unless you are rather short.
You can also still observe a jamb which shows the width within which the message would have been written.

I also think it is a fair presumption that the graffiti was fresh. It was stated that it looked fresh. The buildings were very new and graffiti would have stood out more and been more likely to be cleaned up quickly. It was anti Jewish graffiti in a largely Jewish block which again suggests it would have been removed quickly.

Lastly and to my mind the clincher is that journalists throughout this case frequently made enquiries to find out extra information and delighted in releasing it to show that the police were lacking or just to get a new angle and more readers. I am fairly sure that had the graffiti been there earlier than that night then someone would have come forward or been found who had seen it and it would have appeared on one of the newspapers.

[Wickerman]

If the lamp was south of the relevant entrance – as seem to be the case – and the graffiti was on the right hand jamb,...

Which appears to be the case, therefore most likely written in daylight.

Regards, Jon S.

[FrancoLoco]

Thank you for the kind words Phil.

It's certainly possible that she may have used the rag herself given that, I believe, the menstrual rags she had on her person were somewhat stained with blood already. It's possible she stopped off in a dark alley to relieve herself and wipe herself up a bit and that could explain the traces of fecal matter found on the cloth. Especially if that relief included what we were taught to call a 'Number Two' and she had no other way of cleaning herself. That could explain the bloodstain pattern as well.

But if that were the case, how did it end up in Goulston Street? If she had relieved herself in a dark alley and used the apron to wipe herself, wouldn't we expect to find the apron in that dark alley?

[Trevor Marriott]

But if that were the case, how did it end up in Goulston Street? If she had relieved herself in a dark alley and used the apron to wipe herself, wouldn't we expect to find the apron in that dark alley?

Eddowes had ample time to be able to deposit the piece herself in Goulston Street following her release from the police station. There was a 40 minute time window between release and death.

Bishopsgate PS to Flower and Dean st where her lodgings were 10- 15 mins depending on walking speed.

Flower and dean Street to Mitre Square 10-14 mins depending on walking speed.

Goulston Street would have been en route back to city.

If the apron piece was matched by the repair that surely shows that it was torn as against being cut now the killer would not have inspected the apron looking for a weakspot to tear when he was holding a sharp knife

The graffiti is absoloutley NOT connected to the murder or any other murder

[Monty]

Also as I think Long’s beat took him up Goulston Street from south to north he would have been even less likely to see the graffiti before seeing the apron.

I believe Long stated he was walking down Goulston St which, to me, indicates a North to South route.

However, he may have just meant he was walking down as in along the street.

Monty

[Lechmere]

For some reason I have always assumed Long’s beat took him up from the Aldgate direction while Halse (when he went down Goulston Street earlier) went down from the Wentworth Street direction.
As we don't know the cloud cover we can't really tell whether or not it could have been written at night. However - there seems to be a distinct lack of contemporary reports saying that it must have been done in daytime due to it being too dark to write it at night (unaided by a candle) - so that leads me to think that it could have been written at night. I am sure a clever journalist would have made that point at the time.

[DVV]

The simple truth is that the graffito would have been erased by local Jewish people, if it had been chalked at daytime. So.......

[Monty]

The simple truth is that the graffito would have been erased by local Jewish people, if it had been chalked at daytime. So.......

That a truth David?

How do you deduce that?.....with the ambiguity an all that.

Monty

[DVV]

Arrrfff...! .....I'm sure I have a gut feeling

Amitiés

[Monty]

Arrrfff...! .....I'm sure I have a gut feeling

Amitiés

Heh

Monty

[Wickerman]

The simple truth is that the graffito would have been erased by local Jewish people, if it had been chalked at daytime. So.......

Argh!!! (any use of "simple truth" is a red flag)

When we 'jump to conclusions', the path we take is often the wrong one.

[Chava]

Whoever wrote the graffito could have written it at any time. I'm sure there was no shortage of nasty slogans chalked around the Goulston Street Dwellings and I doubt the inhabitants spend a lot of time worrying about them given that what they had escaped from in Eastern Europe was just so much worse.

In any case, the only thing we know about this event is that someone dropped a piece of Catherine Eddowes's apron in the entrance to the tenement. Could have been the killer. Could have been a friend of the killer. Could have been Eddowes herself. Could have been (and this is not something I've seen suggested but that I think is highly possible) a stray dog that took it up and then dropped it randomly having found it too unwieldy to cart around. It's not like there weren't a ton of strays and pets running loose in the area, and the blood would attract a dog immediately.

[Monty]

And feacal matter Chava?

Would that attract a hound so much it carries it away? And from where?

Monty